Parents Lock Autistic Son in Feces-Covered 'Jail Cell'

him. Him him and my daughter are just. escape artists. That's kind of why we. have this. Imagine a child locked up in. a makeshift prison cell inside of his. own home for six years. Feces covered. walls, a dirty couch, no way out. This. is the horrifying reality uncovered in. Nevada where parents Jeffrey and Misty. Scandlin pleaded guilty to child. neglect. But their punishment, their. sentence will shock you. I am going to. break down the details of this.

horrifying case for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. What an update in a case that. still makes no sense. And when you hear. the official sentence for the husband. and wife who locked up their 11-year-old. autistic son inside of a makeshift. prison cell in their own home for 6. years, because that's what the. allegations were. I think you may also. be asking, how does any of that make.

sense? I think that is a fair argument. when we talk about what the sentence was. here. So, we have Jeffrey Scandlin and. Misty Scandlin of Henderson, Nevada, and. they pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. charge of child neglect, and they each. were sentenced to just one year of. probation. Well, no jail time, no prison. time. So, the judge in this case. determined that the couple was at a low. risk of reoffending, which contributed. to her decision not to in impose an.

incarceration penalty. This is according. to the Las Vegas Review Journal. And. we'll get more into the the legal. underpinnings of that, but I have to. first get you up to speed in case you're. not familiar with this case. And a fair. warning, this is beyond disturbing. This. all came to light back in April of last. year when an officer visited the. Scandlin home after their children. hadn't shown up for school. And what. this officer discovered was horrifying. You have an 11-year-old boy with severe. autism, apparently locked up in a metal.

barred enclosure described as quote. similar in appearance to a jail cell or. similar to a jail cell. And that, by the. way, is basically the wording from the. incident report in this case. Now, the. 11-year-old, who we're not identifying, lives with severe autism spectrum. disorder. According to his parents, he. is strong. He can be destructive. And. so, the idea was they needed to manage. his behavior. And the Scanlands decided. that the way to do that was to build.

what was described as a makeshift cage. in their living room. And they kept him. confined in this area for much of the. last 6 years. But they didn't build it. themselves. No. Apparently, someone. actually professionally constructed that. for them. Listen to this. When When did. you have this installed then? Uh, a few. years. ago probably 6 years ago. Oh, wow. Okay. So, he was strong at a young age. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's like, it's just part of his stming.

He just Oh, yeah. Yeah. You know, that's. that's Yeah, I get it. So, the officer. on site reported hearing screaming and. banging inside the home, but apparently. no one answered the door for about 40. minutes. When Jeffrey Scanland finally. opened the door, he claimed the children. had been sick. Hey, buddy. He basically. we had. to do this because it keeps him from. kicking holes. Mhm. Everywhere in the. house. Does he have like uh he doesn't. hit his head on the walls or anything. like that? No. No. Okay.

Um, how about the other children then that. are supposed to be in school? Yeah, they're upstairs. Able to get him down. here? Yeah, he's very strong. He just. turned 11, but he's. super strong. Yeah, I mean I he's ripped. off cabinets, kicked holes. His room. upstairs, he you know, he kicked a hole. all the way through into my bedroom. Okay. You know, it's just he, you know. Okay. So to keep him from. destroying the house, we try to keep him.

in here. He doesn't know how to unlock. No. Wow. Well, on this one, we had to uh. we had to tie this up. And then on the. other door on the other door, we have a. key lock. Okay. So, cuz Yeah. I mean, some some of them are very observant. Oh. Oh, dude. They are smart. Smart in. ways that we don't expect sometimes. Oh, they're so sharp. Him him and my. daughter, they're both autistic. So, so. my concern as a safety officer is what. happens in case of a fire. Uh that that.

can be cut right there. It's just tied. up. So that door opens right up. Uh and. the other one has it locked. He could. open it and yank it. Uh no, it's just tied up right now. It's. just tied up. Right. Right. Right. Right. But I mean technically Okay. It. opens right up. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. They. were concerned about that when they. installed it. Yeah. Yeah. And that's I. mean that's what we're looking for is. the safety of the situation. By the way, thank you for coming to us as we cover. these kinds of stories. We really really.

appreciate it. And look, I also want to. send a shout out and thank you to our. great partner and sponsor Morgan and. Morgan because it's with their support. that helps us to keep on doing this. Now, this is America's largest injury. law firm, a firm with over a thousand. attorneys. You know why they have so. many? Because they win a lot. In the. past few months, Morgan and Morgan. secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car. crash victim in Florida, $5.6 million. for another car accident victim in. Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million. in Kentucky after insurance offered them.

a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if. you think your case isn't worth millions. of dollars, why not start a claim and. fight for what you deserve? Morgan and. Morgan makes it so simple. You can start. a claim from your phone in just eight. clicks. So, if you're injured, you can. easily start a claim at. forthepeople.comlcsidebar. Now, according to the incident report, inside. officers found a large enclosure with. metal bars and a locked door. And inside. that enclosure was the 11-year-old boy.

wearing only a diaper sitting on a dirty. couch. The enclosure was covered in. feces on the floor and walls. Misty. Scandlin arrives back home later on. First responders are eventually able to. get the 11-year-old out of the house to. get him checked out. And Misty. apparently later told police more about. why their child was being kept inside. this cell. And she apparently told. police that the enclosure had been. installed about 5 years earlier to keep.

their son safe. So talk to me about. um this this gate that's in the living. room. Uh my understanding is that you. guys use that for. he's a runner. The only time we had the. door. open, he's taken off maybe about four or. five times. When was the last time that happened? Uh. it's been a while. So when did you guys put this date in.

there? Now, notably, she also later admitted to. police that she had stopped cleaning the. enclosure 3 weeks earlier, saying that. she just got extremely busy. So, the. Scanlands had four children in total, the 11-year-old boy, an 8-year-old. daughter who also apparently has autism, and two other sons, so ages 14 and 16. And the 16-year-old hadn't been.

attending school. The 14-year-old was. allegedly doing online school, though. the parents admitted they weren't sure. how much work he was actually. completing. And the incident report says. that he was marked as a no-show from the. school that he was attending, the Nevada. Learning Academy. And then Jeffrey. Scanland told police more about how they. were keeping their children's behavior. in check. And how do you guys uh kind of. deal with him when he's in that that. way? Um, you know, we try to distract. him. Um, sometimes give him a popsicle, things like that. um just try to kind of.

take his mind off of when he gets upset. and he can't, you know, cuz he gets. upset and he, you know, bites his hand. or he kicks the walls or kicks the gate, you know, he's just, you know, and we. just try to take him out of that, you. know, by by distracting him or, you. know, sometimes eventually just giving. him what he wants. Okay. Uh outside of. obviously both of them are at school, are you receiving or going after any. sort of other services? Does anyone come.

in home? Do you guys go anywhere for. like behavioral therapy or anything like. that? No. Okay. Have you guys tried any. of that before or uh No, we haven't. Just uh you know, we were just kind of. dealing and trying to just get through. dayto days basically. It's you know, we. I don't know haven't really I mean they. they give us some kind of suggestions. but it's like I don't know what you know. I don't know where this would start. basically. Okay. And has there been any. sort of. uh progress since he started school?

Yeah. Oh yeah. And and talk to me a. little bit about um so obviously there's. there's feces like in his room and in. the the gate there. What's what's up. with that? Um sometimes you know he just. has accidents. He'll wipe it on the. wall. Um we try to clean it sometimes. and you know when we see it you know we. try to clean it up. I mean we've gone. through tons of those Kleenex or the. Clorox wipes. Yeah. When was the last. time you guys cleaned his gate area? His. gate area, it's been like two, three.

weeks. Okay. What about his room? Uh his. room, he hasn't really been staying much. in it, so it's been a while. Okay. And. uh so obviously he sleeps mostly in the. the gate area. Sounds like room. Um is. that why there's no like furniture or. anything in his room or Yeah. B uh we. took all the you know he had a bed at. one point he had a dresser at one point. that he will I mean he's so strong him. and my daughter they they both of them. you know they would turn their furniture. over stand it up we were scared that.

they were going to break the windows out. so we just took all the furniture out. and you know. and then so she's not quite as as. forceful. She's still an escape artist. Oh yeah. Um and she's still like strong. So So do you ever use like the gate for. her? Uh we haven't just because we we. were supposed to have the gate company. come out and fix the bars, the ones that. are broken. Like uh you seen there's. pieces of plywood up there just to keep. him from getting out cuz he would break. the bars and basically he was able to.

sneak out. U smaller so she can sneak. right through those. So we don't you we. haven't kept her in there just because. you know the other bars won't keep her. Okay. And is it the same? I I saw. through kind of had some some feces, too. Does she have the same issue with. the accident? Yeah. Um Yeah. She uh. sometimes like we'll uh put duct tape. around her like uh her uh pajamas so she. can't get into her diaper cuz sometimes.

at night she'll get into her diaper and. she'll Okay. So, she wears diapers. What. about Yeah, he wears diapers, too. Okay. So, they both wear diapers. Yeah. Now, the parents told police that they locked. their daughter in her room at bedtime. and then duct taped the top of her shirt. to her diaper to prevent her from. grabbing her feces. And when asked why. they didn't seek help for their. children, Jeffrey Scanland said they. didn't know where to start, that they. didn't want strangers in their house. This is all according to the police. report. And before we go any further.

into this, I want to bring on criminal. defense attorney Adrien Lobo, who is. actually in Las Vegas, knows this law. well. Uh Adrian, thanks so much for. taking the time to come on. Before we. even get into the plea, before we even. get into the sentence, the punishment. here, just your thoughts on this being. from the. community. I mean, it is a pretty. horrifying allegation to hear that a. child was kept in a cage and that this. cage had been in the home for 6 years.

It is shocking for sure and I think very. shocking for the community. I can say in. the Las Vegas area and the surrounding. suburbs, this is a very nice area. Um, I. would say upper middle class. Um, and. you rarely, if any, hear anything. happening over there at all. And I. think, you know, from a layman's. perspective, you could say, "Oh my gosh, this looks like a clear-cut case of. child abuse or endangerment or neglect.". But from a legal standard, when they.

talk about the children being placed in. these deplorable living conditions, how. does that meet the legal standard under. Nevada law of child neglect or abuse or. endangerment? Right? And I think um it's important to. like look at this statute like the. deplorable living conditions, right? It's not enough to have a messy home um. you know that would put your child's. like health and safety in jeopardy. it. has to be rising to the level that it's. going to cause them some sort of. physical illness or a mental sort of um.

harm as well. And in this case, it. appears at first glance that that would. have been happening. Of course, one. thing that's not captured in the police. reports um is we just have summaries, but we don't have the forensic. interviews. The other thing that makes. this very challenging, too, is two of. the children, you know, have some sort. of communication issues. one of course. being more severe than the other which. is you know the young boy um not being. verbal at all. So to say to him or to.

have some sort of interview it makes it. very challenging and difficult. But one. of the most I think compelling things is. that the child was like screaming and or. making some sort of sounds rattling you. know the gates um where he was being. enclosed because he clearly was in a. state of of not enjoying where he was. at. And I would presume that it causes. great mental harm and especially with. somebody who has that sort of. disposition, you know, to not be able to.

rationally understand it. By the way, I. was looking under Nevada law. The way. that I see it is there's two, as we talk. about a felony versus a misdemeanor, and. correct me if I'm wrong. A felony would. be if a parent willfully causes their. child who, let's say, is less than 18. years of age to suffer unjustifiable. physical pain or mental suffering as a. result of abuse or neglect. A. misdemeanor is a person who is. responsible for the safety or welfare of. a child and who permits or allows that. child to suffer unjustifiable physical.

pain or mental suffering as a result of. abuse or neglect. So in other words, a. felony would be if you willfully do it, whereas a misdemeanor is you're just. you're create you're creating a. situation where it could happen. Am I. understanding the difference there and. why it may be important to keep that in. mind with respect to this sentence? And. we'll get to more of the sentence in a. bit, but am I understanding that. correctly? That is correct. It is more. of the mental element um which is the. intent behind the conduct. Whether it's. intentional or whether it's negligent um.

is definitely the breaking point between. a felony and a misdemeanor. When you hear these. parents apparently say, or at least the. father, I don't know where to start. I. don't know where to get the appropriate. services. I don't know how someone could. have helped. On one hand, when I first. heard this case, I said that's that's. not a defense. Then again, when I look. at what again, we will get more into the. sentence and the plea. I'm thinking, is. that a legitimate rationale here? Is. there something to to be said that the.

state doesn't offer the appropriate. services that are easy for people to get. or easy for people to find? What did you. make of that? It's interesting, right, because I can. see both sides of the argument like you. I think that on one hand, if I was the. prosecutor, I would be very fixated on. the fact that the um 11year-old who, you. know, is a severely autistic child that. he was at the variety school. So, the. parents had enough wherewithal to have.

the child enrolled in the proper school. and the school was giving out of course, you know, the referrals to the agencies. So, we didn't know what to to do. We're. at our wits end. I don't know how much I. think that argument, you know, holds. water at the end of the day. The other. thing is that they had somebody, a. contractor presumably, come into the. home and install this sort of um edifice. in the in the area. And so if you've got. the resources, right, which I would.

presume is at least like a few thousand. bucks to have it professionally done, uh, that you don't know how to kind of. get your child to the doctor or pay. those few thousand dollar even if their. insurance didn't cover it um to get them. in with a specialist to spend the money. in that regard. Um, you know, so that's. one side of it. The other side being I. think the stronger defense argument is. that the parents have a duty to all of. the children and if one child is harming. the other I think there can be an.

argument although I don't think it's. very strong that they were just at their. wits end and if they're harming the. other children then what do the parents. do at that point you know see this is. what's interesting about it because. there would be an argument and again. we'll get into this more particularly. their attorney statements But is there. an argument to be made that these. measures were necessary to protect the. children, to protect others? Um, because. if you're going to have somebody come in. and install it, you have to wonder, is.

there a scenario where this I mean, it's. crazy I'm even saying it, but is there a. scenario where it arguably could be. justified or maybe doesn't appear to be. what it looks like on its face? you. know, on the face when I described it, it sounds like cruel and unusual to to a. form of punishment to keep a child. locked up like this. But is there a a a. potential argument to make this was. necessary? Well, I think there is. And that. wouldn't be really captured in the. police report, right? That would be part.

of the defense's case preparation for. trial. And as a defense attorney, something I would want to know about, you know, from the parents is every. single step that you chronologically. took to seek help. And we don't know. that because that would be privileged. information. So, for example, the. attorney in this case, he's a very good, wellrespected, aggressive attorney in. our community. I could see Mr. Daskovich. going through line by line or trying to. figure out what they had done, possibly.

meeting with the prosecutor, letting the. prosecutor know these are the steps that. were taken. This is the resistance they. met. You know, who knows what they did. that would not be captured, that's a. proper conversation for their attorney. And whether the attorney discloses it to. the prosecutor and the prosecutor then. makes a decision about uh this is what a. jury would hear. all the steps of how. these people tried to get help and. didn't and this was the last resort. But. I don't know that necessarily I would.

hope that something like that took place. because otherwise the negotiation is. very shocking. Let's talk about it now. cuz let's get into this plea uh these. and the deal that was taken these two. ended up taking uh and the sentencing. So, initially, initially, it was our. understanding the Scalins were facing. felony charges of child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. But they ended up. taking a plea deal where they only had. to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. of child neglect. And in the state of. Nevada, a person convicted on these.

charges, our understanding, would be a. category B felony, meaning that this. resulted in a child suffering physical. pain or uh mental anguish, they could. have faced anywhere from 2 to 20 years. in prison. But when it's downgraded to a. misdemeanor charge, that punishment. reduces it up to what? Six months in. jail. But that's not even what they. received. Instead, the court imposed a. one-year probation, no jail time. And. during sentencing, District Judge. Jessica Peterson emphasized that the. Scandlins were deemed a low risk of. reaffending, which influenced the.

sentencing decision. And the judge noted. that the couple had no prior criminal. history, had shown remorse for their. actions. But again, Adrian, I I'm I'm. having difficulty understanding that no. incarceration time for what is quite a. quite a crime here. I I I think it is shocking. I will say. that it wasn't a misdemeanor. It was a. gross misdemeanor. So, in the state of. Nevada, we have a felony, we have gross. misdemeanor, and then the lowest being.

misdemeanor. Misdemeanor are punishable. up to six months in county jail. A gross. misdemeanor is punishable up to one year. in county jail. And then the felony, as. you said, is a Bcategory felony. Can. either be a 1 to6 or a 2 to 20, I. believe. And so what they pled to was. the middle charge. So it's not a. misdemeanor in that sense. What I was. more shocked about is that the one-year. probationary period. Now, a judge has. authorization to have that pro. probationary period for three years,

right? And so th that three years would. have extended it. So at least there's. some sort of supervision, you know, over. the children. That being said that this. is such um an I think a very beneficial. deal for the scan that I'm not at all, you know, surprised I and it makes me. wonder if Judge Peterson was given kind. of the um a conference with the. prosecutor and the defense attorney. because this is the sort of thing that.

as a judge you would be like, "Are you. kidding me?" because the judge has the. the authority to, you know, um, if you. will, blow up the negotiation and say, "I don't agree with this. I'm sending. you to to to jail for this amount of. time." And so if if she was apprised of. that and understood that, and yes, the. low risk to reoffend, you have to come. back as anything but high under the. statute. So, they had to pass a mental. evaluation and a psychological. examination to determine whether or not.

they were going to be um somebody who. is, you know, going to, you know, reaffend in the future. I think a large. part is that they were compliant. They. had, you know, the child in the right. school and it seems as though, you know, they complied with, you know, all of law. enforcement's questions, etc. And so. that, you know, does give some credence. to it, but it is quite shocking, especially for the one-year supervision. Does it make you think there would have. been a weakness in the prosecution's.

case? Maybe they could improve there was. that willful element. Uh do you think. that is maybe something to consider. here? I think so. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And you know, I mean, we're. splitting hairs here, but that's what. defense attorneys do, right? It's nuance. in this situation. I think that the. media, you know, rightly has categorized. it as a cage because that's what they. see in the body cam footage and whatnot. I will say it's more like they put bars. around the like a family den area. And I.

I don't think that that really is going. to, you know, carry, you know, the. argument at the end of the day um to say. that it wasn't willful or it's not that. inhumane. The fact is is that you'd put. bars up anywhere within the home to. enclose a child or any sort of human. that deserves basic decency is quite. shocking. And I think that there must. have been some sort of flaws that we. don't necessarily know about. And as I. spoke, it could be that, you know, the. defense attorneys went to, of course, the prosecutors and laid out everything.

that they had done or they tried to get. the, you know, referrals and they did. They went they met with whatever. resistance but you know or or it was. just to or it was just to spare the pain. the hardship of a trial subjecting. jurors to seeing feces covered walls. pictures video documentation of what. this child was going through maybe the. other children were going through. Is it. that as well? Hey, let's if we can avoid. a trial at all costs, let's try to do. it.

Well, yeah. And I think a prosecutor in. this sort of situation has a very. delicate job to do. There are four. children that are in the home. It. appears that they're not being like. abused in the classic sense like beaten, starved to death. Um you know, something. along those lines. So when CPS is called. in, I think it's also important to note. that it's not just law enforcement, it's. CPS. And so they're not only going to be. subjected to the criminal system, but. also to the family court system in. tandem. So the they're going to have.

supervision on multiple fronts and have. probably already completed by the time. this case hit the criminal system. They. probably had already dealt with some of. the ramifications that were occurring in. family court. And so if they're being. compliant, that bodess well for them, too. Talk to me about this. The uh Las. Vegas Review Journal reported that the. prosecutors, talking about the. prosecutors, they didn't even argue that. these parents were high risk. They could. have, right? Going back to your point.

about what probation should have looked. like. Um why do you think they didn't. even argue that? Well, it's not that they get to. determine that. So, it's a psychologist, right, that the state refers you to that. they get to determine it. And so. everybody agrees that the child or the. defendants would be evaluated by these. people and then everybody accepts that. unless there's a reason to challenge it. So for example, the prosecutor is going. to take it at you know like wait they're.

they're not allowed to argue it. If the. parents had come back as high risk to. reaffend the prosecutor pursuant to the. guilty plea agreement would have. regained the right to argue. meaning. that the prosecutor, if they were high-. risk, could have argued for additional. terms and could have argued for a year. in jail. By the way, I have to ask you this. Could CPS have intervened earlier to. prevent this, right? I mean, that's the.

interesting part. And when you read the. police report, CPS is saying that there. were no prior contacts. They had not. been called to the house before. And so. I can tell you from a CPS perspective. that goes in tandem with a criminal. investigation, they nine times out of 10. are always going to be looking at a. history and if the parents are. compliant. In this case, you've got two. other children. Yes, they should be in. school and attending school, but if. they're not being, you know, abused, malnourished,

um you know, they're not in a position. to really pull the other kids out. and. they're always going to operate for what. the best interests of the child are. I. understand that the children went to. live with a relative after the after. this had happened and they were, you. know, in the relative's custody. There's. a process of course to get them back. home because the courts are going to. look at it as though it's like we're. going to try to give the family. services. We're going to make sure they. have the tools to be able to manage the. children and then, you know, go from.

there. And so in this situation, it's. not surprising to see that, you know, CPS didn't have any prior contacts. So. it was deemed like if you're compliant, we're going to work to help that you and. the kids and the family as a whole get. to a place, you know, where everybody is. safe. It's interesting you say that. Two. things about it. One, in a statement, child protective services said the. parents quote chose repeatedly to place. their children into potentially. dangerous situations and place the two. children into deplorable living. conditions that directly threatened harm.

to their health. While Jeffrey and Misty. both indicated that they were doing what. they could with the situation that was. in front of them, it was clear based on. their statements that Jeffrey and Misty. had repeatedly failed to acquire or seek. services for assistance with the. struggles they experienced with their. children. And according to the Las Vegas. Review Journal, their attorney, who. we've been talking about, Robert. Draasovich, said that he believes this. 11-year-old is currently in his client's. custody and that the Scanlands did the.

best they could with the tools at their. disposal. Now, we couldn't independently. confirm that, but is that true that the. the parents would have their custody of. their children after all this? It could. be very much so. So, for example, I. believe that the this happened in April. of last year. From what I read in just. looking at the court docket, it appears. that the case did not get to um like. formal charging, if you will, until. later in the summertime. And during.

those months period, even though the. criminal case hasn't taken off, the CPS. case is happening. And so, the the. family services case will hit the ground. faster and will be running. So, it's not. uncommon to see the criminal case kind. of trailing behind and by the time it. takes off, the family has done all of. the requirements and has shown to the. Department of Family Services that. they're in a place to be reunited with.

the children. Right? So that's why the. probation conditions that Judge Peterson. said is to further comply with any and. all directives by the Department of. Family Services because nine times out. of 10, it wouldn't surprise me if the. kids were already back because they had. completed whatever requirements the. department had ordered. I mean, look, at. the very least, we just wishing them, you know, safe resolution, a a you know, that they're they're being their needs. are being met, that they're okay, that. they're safe. uh because it's a really.

harrowing situation and I will tell you. um the other defense attorney in this. case, Michael Horvath, called this. outcome quote a fair resolution. And he. argued that the uh enclosure, as we've. been talking about, their. interpretation, it was not a cage. It. was a safety measure, saying quote, "Obviously, the initial charges didn't. really show what the underlying facts. were." So, you're seeing uh what many. will look as a controversial decision in. the end, but I think Adrian, we kind of. laid it out about what some of the.

challenges may have been might have been. for prosecutors, why we're seeing this. resolution, what guided the judge's. decision, but we are just hoping. everybody moving forward uh is safe and. healthy because this is a really really. distressing situation and hopefully a. wake-up call uh both to these parents. and any others in similar situations. Uh. Adrien Lobo, thank you so much for. coming on, taking the time. Really, really appreciate it. Uh, and hopefully. we get a chance to have you back on soon. for a for a different case. For a. different case, not uh this one is. really something to say the least. Exactly. Well, thank you for having me.

I appreciate it. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for. joining us and as always, please. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your. podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to. you next time. [Music].