It’s becoming increasingly clear that the criminal charges of kidnapping and burglary against Brittany Sheehan we first reported on in November are part of a custody case masquerading as a criminal trial — a custody case in which one party doesn’t have to pay any legal fees.
Since the first story, Sheehan was ordered to appear for an evidentiary/jurisdiction hearing in the Nevada custody case she filed in August 2021, despite the fact that the judge found on October 20 that Nevada had jurisdiction and the California judge declined jurisdiction.
In a highly unusual move, Clark County Judge Dee Smart Butler took over the hearing on a motion to dissolve the temporary protective order, filed by Mr. Manty’s attorneys, from the commissioner who’d heard the original motion for the protective order and combined it with the evidentiary/jurisdiction hearing. In just 30 minutes, Butler had dismantled the temporary restraining orders and Sheehan was arrested by US Marshals on the California warrant. Sheehan was released from jail at 11:05 on December 6, after being detained for five consecutive days without any bail. According to her California criminal attorney’s statement in open court on December 13, Sheehan was told that given the circumstances her attorney would simply appear for her December 7 and request a continuance on that hearing.
Unfortunately, the Deputy District Attorney wouldn’t agree and used Sheehan’s absence to argue for and receive a new arrest warrant with $250,000 bail, and a new hearing was set for December 13. You can read my coverage of the proceedings at that hearing here.
At this morning’s hearing, after statements from the elementary school principal and the investigating detective, and over sworn testimony that there was no custody order in place in Nevada or in Madera County on the date in question and the forceful arguments of her attorney, Sheehan was remanded into custody but with bail set at the statutory amount of $100,000 instead of $250,000. Manty was present in courtroom, but he declined to give any statement. He placed his head in his hands as handcuffs were placed on Sheehan’s wrists. As he left the courtroom, he appeared to have tears in his eyes and motioned to a woman who’d arrived with Sheehan that he wanted to talk to her. The woman told RedState that Manty was choked up and said, “I did everything I could to try and get her bail lowered to $25,000.”
Superintendent/acting Principal Dr. Marcie Guthrie gave a statement to the court about the day Sheehan came to the school, leading off with her opinion that “a kidnapping occurred” by Sheehan “accessing the school and ignoring my authority as acting principal that day.” Guthrie further stated:
“That person, who was unknown to the staff because she had never been to the school before, entered the locked campus, took artwork off the door, and exited the school with a child. That was the single most challenging day I’ve had in my 30 years as an educator. I don’t lose kids. That day I lost a kid.”
If one listened only to Guthrie’s comments, it’s reasonable to assume that a stranger unknown to anyone burst onto campus and forcefully abducted a child, and obviously, that’s challenging. But given that one of the first things Guthrie expressed was incredulity that Sheehan wouldn’t submit to her “authority as acting principal,” it seems that’s what Guthrie was really upset about.
Guthrie left out a lot of pertinent issues, namely that the person who came to her school that day was the mother of a student, that the mother had previously corresponded with the school secretary and emailed the secretary a copy of her Nevada drivers license and a copy of an unsigned minute order in the pending Nevada custody case (simply as a means of showing that yes, she is T’s mother and that there is an ongoing court case), that when Sheehan arrived at the school she presented her identification and filled out and signed a school-provided form for signing her daughter out, and that there were no orders she was aware of preventing Sheehan from signing her daughter out or traveling with her.
In fact, as Madera County Detective Babineaux later testified, “there was no court order [for custody] on file in either Las Vegas or Madera County” that day.
Guthrie claimed that when Sheehan arrived at the school on November 4, she placed the school on lockdown, locking all of the classroom doors, but Sheehan walked around the school knocking on doors and saying her daughter’s name until her daughter opened one of the doors, as RedState reported on November 24. She also said she had the entire school shelter in place – having all of their recesses and lunch indoors – on December 7, when she was “informed that [Sheehan] posted bail and was to appear in court in Madera County,” because she was afraid that Sheehan would show up at the school to again retrieve her daughter. According to her, the incident had left her traumatized.
“It was traumatic, knowing that someone could come on campus, access a classroom, and actually leave with a child.”
And if Sheehan wasn’t locked up on $100,000 bail, Guthrie feared what might happen.
“I consider it a serious risk that I won’t have security. I’ll be on eggshells, knowing that at any time she can access the campus.”
Sheehan had full access to the campus from the beginning of school until November 3rd, and as there weren’t any court orders she could. At this point, while the trial is pending, there is a criminal protective order issued prohibiting Sheehan from going on the school campus or speaking to Guthrie, to Justin Manty, or to her daughter, so Guthrie should feel relieved since Sheehan doesn’t have a history of going onto a school campus or taking her daughter anywhere in violation of a court order.
Det. Babineaux made a statement to Judge, which began with:
“Hillside Elementary is a locked, fenced-in school. It was opened by her entering the office. They had never seen her before.”
As any other person would, she went into the office. Is that not sinister?
The fact that they hadn’t seen her before is irrelevant. She lives hours away and the child was enrolled in the school only after Manty refused to return her to her mother to attend the school the two had agreed upon in a signed, notarized stipulation document, and against Sheehan’s wishes. And, as noted above, the school had a copy of Sheehan’s Nevada driver’s license for about a month before Sheehan arrived on campus.
Babineaux also admitted that Sheehan had filed for restraining orders against Manty in the past but that they were dismissed by a judge, but didn’t admit that the restraining orders were initially granted and in effect for months before being dismissed and that they were dismissed because Sheehan failed to cooperate with authorities – which often happens in domestic violence cases.
Sheehan’s attorney argued that there had been no showing from the state that Sheehan didn’t have the right to sign her daughter out of school that day, that the state hadn’t shown there were any orders prohibiting that, and Det. Babineaux stated that no order was in effect on November 4. According to the Stanislaus County, CA District Attorney’s office, state law allows Sheehan to do exactly what she did:
Parents have the same rights as their children if they do not receive court orders. The law states that one parent cannot hide their child(ren) or refuse to give contact/visitation to another parent. Domestic violence can be an exception. In this case, a parent may flee with the child(ren) as long as they notify the District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit within ten days, and file the appropriate paperwork in the Superior Court Clerk’s Office in a reasonable time period.
It is legal for one parent to grant visitation or contact to the other parent on a limited basis, but not to take the child(ren), if they are presently living at the residence of the visiting parent. The parent with physical custody may keep the child in their home until Court orders are issued.
Sheehan’s attorney vociferously argued that there were no custody orders in place, that Sheehan has been complaining of domestic violence by Manty for years, and that she exercised her right to pick up her daughter because of her belief that she was being emotionally and physically abused.
Justin Manty (det.) spoke after the hearing. Babineaux and Manty spoke in the corridor for about 10 minutes. Manty asked Babineaux which papers from his criminal case he had to submit to family court in order to open a case. Babineaux advised Manty. Manty then went to the family law section of the courthouse and inquired about the custody case he’d failed to serve Sheehan on, and about filing a new custody case based on the criminal protective order that had just been issued.
RedState is informed Sheehan will post bail immediately.
Following the hearing, copies of the criminal complaint as well as Det. Babineaux’s sworn declaration supporting the complaint were again requested from the Madera County Clerk of Court. The clerk’s office personnel advised that those documents should be available by Wednesday. We will continue to follow this case and provide updates as they become available because it is terrifying to think that a power-hungry superintendent could press kidnapping charges against a parent who has the legal right to sign their child out of school simply because they’re upset that the parent didn’t bow down to their “authority” and to ignore state law.
About Post Author
You may also like
-
The Benefits of Movable Soundproof Room Dividers: Flexibility, Noise Control, and Sustainable Design
-
What to Do Following an Unfair Workers’ Compensation Denial
-
Benefits of Utilizing After School Programs
-
Why Is Extra Security Needed for Events and Meetings?
-
How to Skip the Hassle of PA’s with Orbit AI