On August 19, 2025, Shana Gaviola, a mother of four from Clovis, California, will face trial in federal court for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(2), a statute enacted under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Prosecutors allege that she orchestrated the forcible transport of her 16-year-old child across state lines to a religious boarding school in Missouri—violating a California court’s temporary restraining order in the process.
Yesterday, September 25, 2025, the court denied Gaviola’s motion to dismiss the charges, rejecting her claims that the prosecution infringes on her constitutional rights as a parent and her religious liberty. The ruling sets up a federal criminal trial at the intersection of contentious legal and cultural issues: gender identity, parental authority, religious freedom, and the scope of federal criminal law in family matters.
A Conflict Rooted in Identity and Authority
The origins of the case lie in a family conflict over gender identity and medical decision-making. According to court filings and public statements, Gaviola’s teenage child began identifying as transgender around the age of 13 and asked to be addressed with a new name and pronouns. Gaviola, who describes herself as a devout Christian, opposed the change.
She later learned, through her child, that school-based psychological counseling had taken place without her prior knowledge or consent. The child reportedly told her that a school psychologist had affirmed a transgender identity and suggested that transition-related medical treatment—including surgery—could be pursued without parental approval under California law.
Gaviola strongly objected and refused to support medical transition, citing her religious beliefs and parental responsibility. The child then sought emancipation in the Fresno County Superior Court and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO), which restricted Gaviola from certain forms of contact and prohibited removal of the child from school or home.
What followed forms the basis of the federal indictment: Gaviola allegedly coordinated with Julio Sandoval, the then-dean of the Agapé Boarding School in Missouri, to have the child forcibly removed from their workplace in Fresno, transported across multiple state lines, and enrolled in the school—an institution known for strict discipline.
The child was held at the facility for eight days before being released into the custody of the father. Gaviola and Sandoval were later indicted for interfering with a protection order by coercing interstate travel, a felony under VAWA that carries the potential for imprisonment.
A Novel Application of Federal Law
While 18 U.S.C. § 2262 was enacted to combat domestic violence—primarily to prevent abusers from evading state jurisdiction by crossing state lines—its application in this case is atypical.
Here, the relationship at issue is not between intimate partners or spouses, but between a parent and child, with no final custody order in place at the time of the incident. Gaviola remained the child’s legal guardian; the emancipation petition was pending, and the restraining order was temporary and issued ex parte (i.e., without her initial presence or response).
The prosecution argues that the child was protected under law, that the TRO was valid, and that the use of physical force and deception, handcuffing the child, taking their phone, and driving them 27 hours to another state, constitutes precisely the kind of coercion the statute prohibits.
“The purpose of VAWA is to protect vulnerable individuals, including minors, from abuse and coercion,” one federal official said. “That doesn’t change based on the relationship or the beliefs of the accused.”
But Gaviola’s defense presents a different legal theory. Her attorneys argue that the application of federal criminal law in this case violates bedrock constitutional protections—chief among them, the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, long recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment in cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Troxel v. Granville.
They also assert that Gaviola was exercising her First Amendment right to raise her child according to her religious beliefs and moral values. In their view, placing the child in a Christian school was an act of religious expression and parental duty—not criminal conduct.
“Sending your child to a religious school is not a federal crime,” said one legal analyst close to the case. “This is a question of parental judgment—not abuse, not trafficking, not financial exploitation. At the time of the alleged incident, she was still the parent.”
The Court’s Ruling and Its Constitutional Boundaries
The district court rejected these defenses—at least at the pre-trial stage. It found that the indictment properly stated the elements of the offense and that challenges to the restraining order’s validity must be made in state court.
The court also ruled that § 2262 is a facially neutral law of general applicability, meaning it does not trigger heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, even if it incidentally burdens religious practice. The court found the government’s interest in enforcing protective orders sufficiently compelling to justify any burden imposed on parental rights.
Legal observers note that the ruling follows established precedent but leaves open difficult questions about how far federal law can reach into family disputes—particularly those involving contested matters of identity and medical autonomy.
A Broader Debate Over Parental Rights and Transition Law
Underlying this legal dispute is a broader societal conflict over gender transition procedures for minors, and the rights of parents to approve, delay, or prohibit those interventions.
California law currently allows certain minors to access gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and, in some cases, surgery, without parental consent under specific circumstances. Advocates argue this framework protects transgender youth from unsupportive or abusive home environments. Opponents contend it undermines parental authority, particularly when schools and counselors engage in guidance without informing or involving parents.
This broader context is key to understanding United States v. Gaviola. Though the legal charge concerns a restraining order and interstate transport, the deeper dispute concerns who decides—parent, school, or state—when a child identifies as transgender and seeks medical or psychological transition.
Gaviola’s defenders say the child was influenced by school authorities to adopt a new identity and pursue transition-related care, without her consent or knowledge. Prosecutors say the child was entitled to legal protection and that the mother’s actions amounted to abduction.
What’s at Stake
The case now moves forward to trial, where a federal jury will decide whether Gaviola’s actions violated federal law. But the constitutional and cultural questions it raises will likely outlast the verdict.
If the prosecution prevails, the case could establish that parents who violate temporary protective orders—issued in the context of gender disputes—can face federal criminal penalties. It could also suggest that parental decisions about schooling and religious upbringing are not insulated from criminal scrutiny, even absent a final custody ruling.
If the defense prevails, it may affirm the enduring scope of parental and religious rights—even in contested and emotionally charged cases.
This is likely to go up on appeal, and here are some arguments that could be raised to challenge the decision. This does not constitute legal advice or speak to the likelihood that the arguments may or may not succeed. They are presented as nothing more than a speculative exercise.
Arguments that Could Be Raised on Appeal
A. The Indictment Violates Substantive Due Process
-
Longstanding constitutional protection of parental rights (Troxel v. Granville, Pierce v. Society of Sisters).
-
Gaviola was still the legal guardian; no final custody or emancipation order had issued.
-
Criminal prosecution under these facts infringes on a core liberty interest without compelling justification.
-
Use of a temporary restraining order—entered without hearing—should not suffice to defeat parental rights.
B. The Indictment Violates the Free Exercise Clause
-
Gaviola acted from religious conviction to remove her child from an environment she believed contrary to her faith.
-
Placement in a Christian boarding school was an expression of religious parenting.
-
Even if § 2262 is facially neutral, its application here burdens religious exercise.
-
Under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the statute must survive strict scrutiny.
C. The Statute is Vague as Applied to Parental Conduct
-
Due process requires clarity in defining criminal conduct.
-
§ 2262 does not clearly apply to a parent acting during an unresolved custody dispute.
-
The concepts of “coercion” or “force” are ill-defined in the context of legal guardianship.
-
Application here chills lawful parental decision-making.
D. The Court Erred in Denying Collateral Challenge to the TRO
-
The TRO was issued ex parte, without Gaviola’s input or hearing.
-
Courts routinely allow limited collateral review of underlying orders in criminal cases where liberty is at stake (Walker v. City of Birmingham considered).
-
Deeming the TRO “valid” for federal criminal purposes without process violates due process.
E. Application of § 2262 in This Context Exceeds Congressional Power
-
VAWA was enacted to combat intimate partner violence—not to regulate parent-child disputes.
-
Federal criminalization of parenting decisions transforms state family law into federal criminal law.
-
Under United States v. Lopez and Bond v. United States, this application violates federalism limits.
VI. Conclusion
-
The indictment should be dismissed.
-
Alternatively, the case should be remanded with instructions to evaluate the constitutional claims under heightened scrutiny.