The parents of a 10-year-old child sexually abused by a former Lorena ISD teacher are asking a federal judge to prevent the district and a school principal from questioning her under oath about her trauma.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice.
The former teacher at the center of this case pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two young students and is serving a 40-year prison sentence. However, the separate civil allegations against Lorena Independent School District and Lorena Primary School Principal April Jewell remain pending. Neither the district nor Jewell has been found civilly liable.
The current dispute concerns whether defense attorneys should be permitted to take the deposition of the child, now 10 years old, or whether the court should issue a protective order shielding her from questioning. The child’s attorneys allege that a deposition would cause serious psychological harm. The district and principal are entitled to seek relevant evidence and present arguments supporting their defense, subject to the court’s authority to limit harmful or unnecessarily burdensome discovery.
The parents of a Texas child who was sexually abused by a teacher are asking a federal judge to prevent attorneys for Lorena Independent School District and a school principal from questioning their daughter under oath.
The girl, identified as Jane Doe to protect her privacy, was 5 years old when former long-term substitute teacher Nicolas Scott Crenshaw sexually abused her inside his classroom at Lorena Primary School during the 2020–21 school year.
Crenshaw later pleaded guilty to sexually abusing Jane and a 4-year-old classmate. He received a 40-year prison sentence.
Jane’s parents are now pursuing a federal civil lawsuit against Lorena ISD and Principal April Jewell. The lawsuit alleges that school officials had received warning signs involving Crenshaw’s behavior but failed to take appropriate action before the abuse occurred.
The district and Jewell deny civil liability.
The latest conflict is not about whether Crenshaw abused Jane. His guilty plea resolved his criminal responsibility. The dispute is whether attorneys defending the district and principal should be allowed to question the child directly about the physical and psychological injuries for which her family seeks damages.
What the Parents Are Asking the Court to Do
Jane’s attorneys filed a motion asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Dan MacLemore to issue a protective order preventing Lorena ISD and Jewell from taking the child’s deposition.
A deposition is sworn testimony taken before trial. Attorneys ask questions, a court reporter records the answers and the testimony may later be used during motions, settlement negotiations or trial.
The defendants reportedly want to ask Jane about her past, present and future physical and psychological suffering and understand how the abuse continues to affect her.
The parents argue that the information can be obtained through less harmful sources, including the child’s forensic interview, counseling records, medical and psychological records, testimony from her parents and opinions from retained experts.
They also say they do not intend to call Jane as a witness at trial.
The court must now decide whether the district’s need to question her directly outweighs the danger that the process could cause further psychological harm.
Why the Child’s Attorneys Say the Deposition Would Be Harmful
Jane’s attorneys submitted a declaration from her treating therapist in support of the protective order.
According to the motion, the therapist said Jane suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and generalized anxiety and lacks the cognitive ability to answer complex questions about the past, present and future effects of her injuries.
The child’s attorneys say certain reminders of the abuse can cause panic attacks, terror, physical distress or a dissociative response in which she becomes mentally “frozen.”
They argue that questioning by attorneys about the abuse could increase the frequency and severity of her symptoms and cause harm that could not be reversed simply by ending the deposition.
The motion reportedly describes continuing problems including panic attacks, school avoidance, separation anxiety, headaches, stomachaches, nervousness, aggressive behavior, difficulty coping and fear that Crenshaw could return or abduct her.
These descriptions come from the parents’ court filing and supporting therapeutic evidence. The judge has not yet ruled on the factual or legal weight of those claims.
Why the District May Believe the Deposition Is Necessary
Lorena ISD and Jewell are defending against claims that could result in substantial civil damages.
When plaintiffs seek compensation for physical injury, emotional distress, future impairment and continuing psychological treatment, defendants generally have the right to investigate whether those claimed damages are supported by evidence.
The district may argue that Jane is a party to the lawsuit and the person who directly experienced the harm. Her own account could therefore contain information unavailable from parents, therapists or retained experts.
Defense attorneys may also want to understand which injuries resulted from the abuse, how those injuries changed over time and whether other circumstances contributed to her current condition.
Those are legitimate litigation interests.
The existence of a legitimate interest does not automatically mean the court must allow a conventional deposition. Federal judges may limit the scope, duration, subject matter, location and method of questioning when necessary to protect a vulnerable person.
As of the latest reporting reviewed for this article, no hearing date or final ruling on the motion had been announced.
Federal Rules Allow Depositions but Also Permit Protective Orders
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow a party to depose another person through oral questioning.
A standard deposition may last up to one day of seven hours unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders different limits.
That ordinary framework does not mean every witness must undergo the same process.
Rule 26 allows a court, for good cause, to issue a protective order shielding a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden. The court may prohibit the deposition completely, require another discovery method, limit the topics or impose special conditions.
Rule 30 also permits a party or witness to seek limits when questioning is conducted in a way that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses or oppresses the person being examined.
The judge therefore has several possible options between permitting a full deposition and banning all questioning.
The Court Could Consider Less Harmful Alternatives
The judge is not necessarily limited to choosing between a normal deposition and no deposition.
The court could authorize written questions rather than live questioning.
It could restrict the deposition to a short period and prohibit questions describing the abuse in detail.
It could require a child-sensitive setting, remote participation, frequent breaks or the presence of the child’s therapist.
The judge could limit who may attend and prevent the use of confrontational language.
The court might also require the defendants to rely first on existing records and permit direct questioning only if those materials leave an important factual issue unresolved.
Federal rules expressly allow courts to prescribe a different discovery method or limit the matters that may be examined when good cause exists.
The Parents Say Other Evidence Is Already Available
The parents’ motion asks why the child must be questioned when the parties reportedly already have access to extensive evidence.
That evidence may include the original forensic interview, criminal-investigation records, counseling records, medical documentation, testimony from family members and expert evaluations.
Crenshaw’s guilty plea also means the defendants do not need Jane’s testimony to establish whether he committed the criminal abuse.
The remaining issues concern whether the district and principal may be held civilly responsible and the extent of the child’s damages.
The parents argue that professionals and adults who know Jane can explain those damages without forcing her to relive the abuse during adversarial questioning.
The defendants may respond that secondhand descriptions cannot fully replace the testimony of the person whose injuries are being presented to the court.
The judge will have to decide whether direct testimony would add enough useful information to justify the associated risk.
The Child Is Not Expected to Testify at Trial
Jane’s attorneys say they do not intend to call her as a trial witness.
That position strengthens their argument that the defense does not need a deposition to prepare for her courtroom testimony.
If the child were expected to testify before a jury, defense attorneys would have a stronger argument that they need to learn what she will say and evaluate her account before trial.
The plaintiffs instead say they will use counselors, parents, experts and written records to establish the consequences of the abuse.
The district may still argue that Jane remains a named plaintiff seeking damages and that declining to call her at trial should not prevent the defense from obtaining relevant discovery.
The court must balance those competing positions without treating the child as an ordinary adult litigant.
The Civil Lawsuit Focuses on Alleged School Failures
The parents filed the underlying lawsuit in August 2023.
They allege that Jewell and other school officials received warnings about Crenshaw’s inappropriate conduct toward students but failed to intervene before Jane was abused.
The defendants sought to dismiss the case, but a federal judge rejected those motions in June 2024.
Jewell appealed the ruling concerning her qualified-immunity defense. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of dismissal, allowing the parents’ constitutional claim against her to continue.
That appellate ruling did not establish that Jewell violated Jane’s rights. It determined that the allegations were legally sufficient to proceed beyond the dismissal stage.
The case is currently scheduled for trial in April 2027, although federal trial dates may change.
What the Parents Allege School Officials Knew
The lawsuit alleges that adults connected to the school received information suggesting Crenshaw was behaving inappropriately with young students.
The parents contend that a separate parent raised concerns about Crenshaw touching a child under her shirt before the abuse of Jane was discovered.
They argue that school officials failed to report, investigate or respond adequately to warning signs.
Lorena ISD and Jewell deny wrongdoing and dispute the claim that they ignored information that should have triggered protective action.
The civil trial will examine what information was communicated, who received it, whether the information created an obligation to act and whether any failure caused or contributed to Jane’s injuries.
Crenshaw’s criminal guilt does not automatically prove that the district or principal is legally responsible for what he did.
Institutional liability requires separate evidence concerning notice, authority, policy, supervision and response.
The Principal Is Also Facing a State Certification Case
The Texas Education Agency has initiated a separate administrative proceeding seeking to revoke April Jewell’s educator certification.
TEA alleges that Jewell violated the Educators’ Code of Ethics, unlawfully failed to report suspected child abuse and is unworthy to supervise children.
Jewell disputes the allegations and remains entitled to defend her license through the administrative process.
In May 2026, a federal magistrate judge rejected an effort by Lorena ISD and Jewell to completely block the parents’ subpoena for records connected to the TEA proceeding. The judge narrowed the request to information relevant to reports involving grooming, harassment or sexual abuse between Lorena school employees and students and ordered the materials kept confidential for attorneys’ eyes only.
That ruling concerned access to evidence. It did not decide whether TEA’s allegations are true.
The Deposition Dispute Raises Questions About Institutional Power
A deposition is a normal legal tool, but the surrounding circumstances are unusual.
The child was abused while under the supervision of a public school. She is now being asked to participate in a legal process because her family alleges that the same institution failed to protect her.
From the parents’ perspective, requiring her to undergo questioning by lawyers defending the school could feel like another exercise of institutional power over a child already harmed within that system.
From the district’s perspective, it is defending a public institution against serious legal and financial claims and is entitled to obtain evidence necessary for a fair defense.
Both realities can exist simultaneously.
The purpose of judicial supervision is to prevent the discovery process from becoming abusive while preserving each party’s ability to present its case.
Protecting a Child Does Not Automatically Deny Due Process
Some observers may view any effort to question a child abuse victim as cruel.
Others may argue that filing a lawsuit necessarily opens the plaintiff to questioning.
Neither position fully captures the court’s task.
The defendants have due-process rights and may seek evidence relevant to the claims against them.
The child also has a legitimate interest in avoiding unnecessary retraumatization.
A protective order does not automatically prevent the district from defending itself. The court could allow the district to use records, expert testimony, prior interviews or carefully limited questions.
Similarly, allowing some questioning would not necessarily mean the judge disregarded the child’s welfare. The court could impose strict trauma-sensitive safeguards.
The issue is not whether discovery should exist. It is how much discovery is genuinely necessary and how it should be conducted.
Trauma Can Affect a Child’s Ability to Answer Questions
Children do not always describe traumatic experiences in a clear, chronological or consistent manner.
Memory can be fragmented. Language may be developmentally limited. A child may become silent, confused or distressed when confronted with unfamiliar adults and formal questioning.
A child’s inability to answer a question does not necessarily mean the underlying event did not occur.
In this case, the criminal responsibility of the teacher is already established through his guilty plea.
The proposed questioning reportedly focuses substantially on Jane’s injuries and continuing impairment.
A 10-year-old may have difficulty explaining future psychological consequences or separating different sources of anxiety in the precise way attorneys expect.
That limitation may reduce the usefulness of the testimony while increasing the risk of harm.
The Child Has Spent Half Her Life in Treatment
Jane was 5 when the abuse occurred and is now 10.
Her attorneys emphasize that she has spent approximately half of her life receiving mental-health treatment connected to the trauma.
That fact gives the dispute additional emotional weight, but the legal decision should still rest on evidence and proportionality.
The court must consider the therapist’s assessment, the subjects the defendants want to explore and the availability of other evidence.
The judge may also consider whether a deposition could disrupt treatment or worsen symptoms.
Courts routinely make discovery decisions involving emotional distress. The age of the plaintiff, the nature of the abuse and the treating professional’s warning make this dispute substantially more sensitive than an ordinary damages deposition.
Schools Should Use Trauma-Informed Legal Practices
School districts have a duty to defend themselves responsibly.
They also remain educational institutions responsible for child welfare.
Even during adversarial litigation, a district should consider whether its legal strategy reflects trauma-informed principles.
That does not mean automatically surrendering claims or accepting every allegation.
It means asking whether the needed information can be obtained in a way that minimizes further harm.
District officials should work with counsel to distinguish evidence that is legally necessary from questioning pursued simply because it is ordinarily available.
A technically permissible action can still damage public trust when families believe the district is prioritizing litigation tactics over a child’s recovery.
Public Descriptions Should Remain Careful
Some commentary has described the proposed deposition as an effort to “interrogate” the child.
That word reflects the emotional intensity of the dispute but may suggest a criminal-police questioning process rather than a civil deposition.
A deposition can still be intimidating and adversarial, particularly for a child.
Accurate reporting should explain what is being requested without assuming that defense attorneys intend to harm or intimidate her.
The parents allege that the process would be harmful. The defendants have not publicly explained their full position in the reporting reviewed for this article.
The court, rather than public rhetoric, will determine whether the deposition is necessary and what protections should apply.
The Community Has Closely Followed the Case
The criminal abuse and the district’s response have generated years of controversy in Lorena.
A parent-led group has called for accountability and questioned why administrators remained in their positions after Crenshaw’s crimes became public.
Superintendent Joe Kucera announced in January that he would retire during the summer of 2026. He said the pending lawsuit did not influence that decision.
Jewell remained principal while defending both the federal lawsuit and TEA’s effort to revoke her certification.
The deposition dispute is therefore unfolding against a background of continued distrust between some families and district leadership.
What the Judge Must Decide
The judge must determine whether the parents have demonstrated good cause for protection under Rule 26.
That analysis may consider the child’s age, diagnosis, therapist’s declaration, the likely subjects of questioning and the risk of psychological harm.
The court will also consider the relevance of the requested testimony and whether the defendants can obtain substantially the same information elsewhere.
Possible outcomes include completely prohibiting the deposition, permitting only written questions, allowing a limited live deposition or requiring special conditions.
The court may also postpone a final decision until the parties have exhausted less intrusive sources of discovery.
The ruling could influence how the remainder of the case proceeds, but it will not decide the district’s ultimate liability.
What Other School Districts Can Learn
Districts should prepare for child-centered litigation procedures before a crisis occurs.
When a civil case involves a young abuse victim, legal counsel should evaluate existing forensic interviews, records and expert evidence before seeking direct testimony.
School boards should also understand that litigation strategy affects public confidence.
A district can protect its legal interests while asking its attorneys to use the least harmful effective method of obtaining evidence.
The larger lesson begins before litigation.
When employees report grooming, boundary violations or suspected abuse, districts should act immediately, preserve records and follow mandatory-reporting requirements.
A strong initial response can protect children and reduce the likelihood of years of traumatic litigation.
What Families Should Understand About Depositions
A deposition is not a public courtroom trial, but it is formal sworn testimony.
The witness is usually questioned by opposing counsel while attorneys for the witness may object to improper questions.
A court reporter records the proceeding, and the testimony may be used later in the case.
Parents cannot ordinarily decide unilaterally that a party to a lawsuit will never answer relevant questions.
They may ask the court to prevent or limit the deposition when good cause exists.
In cases involving minors or trauma, families should work with counsel and treating professionals to document the risks and identify safer alternatives.
How New To Education Supports Student-Safety Awareness
New To Education publishes accessible reporting on educational law, student protection, school-district accountability and the rights of families.
Child-abuse litigation requires careful distinctions.
The teacher’s criminal guilt is established. The district’s and principal’s civil responsibility is not.
The parents’ evidence of trauma deserves serious consideration. The defendants also retain the right to present a meaningful defense.
Courts must balance those interests without allowing legal procedure to become another source of avoidable harm.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
The parents of a 10-year-old child sexually abused by a former Lorena ISD teacher are asking a federal judge to prevent the district and Principal April Jewell from taking her deposition.
The child was 5 when Nicolas Scott Crenshaw abused her and a 4-year-old classmate during the 2020–21 school year.
Crenshaw pleaded guilty and is serving a 40-year prison sentence.
The parents’ civil lawsuit alleges that Lorena school officials received warning signs about Crenshaw but failed to respond appropriately.
Lorena ISD and Jewell deny civil liability.
The defendants reportedly want to question Jane about her past, present and future physical and psychological injuries.
Her therapist says a deposition could increase her PTSD symptoms, cause panic and produce serious psychological harm.
The parents say the necessary information is already available through records, prior interviews, therapists, experts and family testimony.
Federal rules allow courts to prohibit, limit or change the method of discovery when necessary to prevent oppression or undue burden.
As of the latest reporting reviewed, the judge had not issued a final ruling on the requested protective order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Jane Doe?
Jane Doe is the pseudonym used for the child to protect her identity and privacy.
How old was she when the abuse occurred?
She was 5 years old during the 2020–21 school year.
How old is she now?
She is now 10.
Who abused her?
Former Lorena ISD long-term substitute teacher Nicolas Scott Crenshaw sexually abused Jane and a 4-year-old classmate.
Was Crenshaw convicted?
He pleaded guilty to multiple child-sexual-abuse offenses and received a 40-year prison sentence.
Why does the district want to question Jane?
The defendants reportedly want information about her physical and psychological injuries so they can evaluate and defend against the damages claimed in the civil lawsuit.
Why are the parents opposing the deposition?
They argue that questioning would retraumatize her and that the relevant evidence can be obtained through records, therapists, experts and adult witnesses.
What is a protective order?
It is a court order that can prohibit or limit discovery to protect a person from oppression, embarrassment, annoyance or undue burden.
Could the judge permit a limited deposition?
Yes. The judge could limit the length, topics, participants or method of questioning rather than allowing a normal deposition or banning it completely.
Has Lorena ISD been found liable?
No. The civil lawsuit remains pending, and trial is currently scheduled for April 2027.
Is Principal April Jewell still facing a certification case?
Yes. TEA is seeking to revoke her educator certification based on allegations including failure to report suspected abuse. That separate matter remains contested.
Final Thoughts
The Lorena deposition dispute asks a difficult but necessary question: How should the legal system obtain evidence from a child when the process of obtaining it may deepen the very injuries being litigated?
Lorena ISD and Principal April Jewell have the right to defend themselves.
The parents also have the right to ask the court to protect their daughter from discovery they believe would cause serious harm.
The answer should not depend on slogans about either side.
It should depend on necessity, proportionality and evidence.
Crenshaw’s abuse is not disputed. He pleaded guilty and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.
The remaining case concerns whether school officials should also be held responsible and what compensation may be appropriate.
If the child’s injuries can be established reliably through records, therapists, forensic interviews, experts and family testimony, the court may conclude that direct questioning adds little compared with the risk.
If the judge determines that some information cannot reasonably be obtained elsewhere, the deposition could be narrowly structured to protect Jane as much as possible.
A justice system should not force a child to relive abuse merely because that is the standard approach in ordinary civil litigation.
It should also not deny defendants access to genuinely necessary evidence.
The court’s responsibility is to find the least harmful method that still allows the case to be decided fairly.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, student safety, mandatory reporting and school-district accountability.
Readers can support this work by sharing our reporting, exploring our educational and professional services or using the support options available through our website.
Related Articles
U.S. Department of Education Launches Nationwide Initiative to Strengthen Student Protection in K–12 Schools
Texas Finds Federal Special Education Violations in Houston ISD Overhaul
Sources
KWTX — Parents of Lorena ISD Student Sexually Assaulted by Teacher Seek to Block School’s Attempt to Depose Victim
KWTX — Judge Denies Motion From Lorena ISD and April Jewell to Quash Subpoena
KWTX — TEA Seeking to Revoke Lorena Principal’s Educator Certification
https://www.kwtx.com/2026/02/05/tea-seeking-revoke-lorena-principals-educator-certification/
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — Doe v. Jewell
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-50480/24-50480-2025-08-15.html
GovInfo — Doe v. Lorena Independent School District
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txwd-6_23-cv-00566/USCOURTS-txwd-6_23-cv-00566-1
Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30
Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31
