Lawsuit Alleges Substitute Teacher Gave Marijuana to Students in California School

Three young brothers—aged eight, nine, and 11—were rushed to the emergency room last April after a substitute teacher allegedly gave them marijuana-laced gummies during an after-school program at Sierra Elementary School in Lancaster, California. The incident, revealed in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, has sparked outrage among parents and raised urgent questions about the adequacy of school oversight and the risks of unregulated substances in educational settings. The alleged perpetrator, Felicia Boyd, 59, is accused of distributing the candy to celebrate the youngest boy's eighth birthday, a decision that instead led to a medical crisis.

According to court documents, the children—identified as A.V., J.V., and S.V.—became lethargic and ill after consuming the gummies, prompting their family to seek emergency care. The lawsuit, filed by their guardian, Cristal Sandoval, names Boyd, the school, and the Lancaster Unified School District (LUSD) as defendants, alleging negligence in hiring, training, and supervising staff. The complaint claims that school administrators—including the principal, teachers, and nurse—were aware of the incident, yet failed to take action to protect the students.

The boys' aunt recounted the harrowing moment when the children were taken to the hospital. She said her nephew told her, 'I can't feel my body,' and described the gummies as the cause of his symptoms. 'They were all scared,' she added. 'He told me it was some gummies that the teacher had given them.' The gummies, allegedly purchased in a lurid pink packet, were labeled 'Fast Acting Nano Powered Gummies' and claimed to contain 2000mg of THC per bag—equivalent to 20mg per gummy. For children weighing under 100 pounds, such a dose is considered dangerously high.

The lawsuit highlights the failure of LUSD to ensure the safety of its students. It alleges that Boyd, who earned $8,384.64 as a teacher in 2023 according to government salary data, was allowed to remain on staff despite potential red flags. The legal filing states that the district's negligence in hiring, retaining, and supervising employees enabled Boyd to possess and administer a controlled substance on school grounds. The packet of gummies, described as 'exotic dragonfruit' flavored, was marketed with bold, party-like language, including claims that it could 'melt your worries away' and 'get the party started.'

The school district and Boyd have remained silent on the allegations. LUSD's superintendent, Dr. Paul Marietti, declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Boyd, when contacted, denied knowledge of the incident. The case, which will be heard in court on June 15, has drawn attention to the gaps in regulatory frameworks that govern school personnel and the accessibility of cannabis products in communities where children are present.

Parents and advocates argue that this tragedy underscores the need for stricter background checks, drug education for educators, and clearer policies on the handling of substances in schools. The incident has also reignited debates about the legal gray areas surrounding cannabis products, particularly those marketed in ways that could appeal to minors. As the lawsuit unfolds, the focus remains on how systemic failures in regulation and oversight have placed children at risk, leaving families to grapple with the aftermath of a preventable crisis.

The boys' legal team, led by Beverly Hills attorneys Michael Geragos and Robert Ounjian, has emphasized the physical, mental, and emotional injuries sustained by the children. The case is expected to scrutinize the school district's role in ensuring a safe learning environment, including its responsibility to screen and train substitute teachers. With the gummies' packaging openly advertising high THC levels and party-like language, the lawsuit has also raised questions about the role of advertising in normalizing the use of potent cannabis products near children.

Sierra Elementary has not responded to requests for comment, leaving many to wonder whether the school's lack of transparency reflects a broader pattern of neglect. The incident has become a cautionary tale for parents and a rallying point for those demanding stronger government intervention in schools, where the line between educational oversight and public safety is increasingly blurred. As the legal battle continues, the children's families hope the case will lead to meaningful reforms to prevent similar tragedies in the future.