Case Summary

State v. Bourdeau — Vermont Supreme Court upholds convictions for obstruction of justice and impeding a public officer; rejects collateral bar challenge to pick-up order

By /
Case
State of Vermont v. Shylo Bourdeau
Court
Vermont Supreme Court
Date Decided
June 5, 2026
Docket No.
25-AP-308
Topics
Obstruction of Justice, Collateral Bar Rule, Court Order Compliance

Background

The Department for Children and Families initiated an investigation regarding defendant Shylo Bourdeau’s minor children in 2022. When the DCF caseworker attempted to contact Bourdeau, she did not return calls, open her door, or respond to written correspondence. Following family court proceedings, a judge issued a pick-up order in June 2022 directing law enforcement to bring the children to the courthouse.

Over the following months, officers made multiple attempts to serve the order. On June 8 and June 20, Bourdeau’s boyfriend refused to accept service and told officers they were trespassing. On July 7, the boyfriend again refused to accept the order—this time with a visible revolver on his hip. In August 2022, an officer attempted to execute the order by meeting the children’s grandmother, who was in their custody. When they arrived outside the courthouse, Bourdeau appeared and took the children into her vehicle. The officer instructed her not to leave with the children because of the court order. Bourdeau drove off with the children anyway, and body camera footage captured the encounter.

Bourdeau was charged with obstruction of justice and impeding a public officer under Vermont law. She testified at trial that she went to pick up the children, saw the officer, heard him say the children needed to stay with him, but left due to prior negative experiences with law enforcement. The jury found her guilty on both counts.

The Court’s Holding

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Bourdeau’s convictions. The court rejected her principal appeal argument that she was denied a fair trial because the judge was biased against her. Bourdeau claimed the judge had labeled her a “sovereign citizen,” but the court found no evidence of this phrase in the trial transcript and held that adverse evidentiary rulings alone do not demonstrate judicial bias absent proof of actual prejudice.

The court also rejected Bourdeau’s contention that she was prevented from presenting a complete defense. Bourdeau sought to introduce evidence about the outcome of the underlying juvenile proceeding to challenge the validity of the pick-up order itself. The trial court excluded this evidence as irrelevant. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld this evidentiary ruling under the collateral bar rule—a doctrine providing that individuals cannot challenge the validity of a court order by violating the order. The court explained that the juvenile proceeding’s outcome was irrelevant to whether Bourdeau was obligated to comply with the pick-up order, and the trial judge acted within its discretion in excluding it.

The court declined to address Bourdeau’s claims regarding standby counsel’s inaction and her references to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Uniform Commercial Code provisions, finding these arguments inadequately briefed and preserved for appeal.

Key Takeaways

  • The collateral bar rule prevents parties from challenging court order validity by violating the order; the proper remedy is to comply first and appeal afterward.
  • Evidence regarding the outcome or validity of an underlying proceeding is not relevant to proving violation of a subsequent order implementing that proceeding’s directive.
  • Trial courts have broad discretion in evidentiary rulings and are reviewed for abuse of discretion only; adverse rulings do not establish judicial bias.
  • Self-represented litigants must properly preserve appellate arguments and comply with appellate briefing standards or forfeit consideration of inadequately presented claims.

Why It Matters

This decision reaffirms Vermont’s strong commitment to the collateral bar rule and the principle that court orders must be obeyed regardless of whether a party believes them invalid. The ruling protects the efficient administration of justice by foreclosing an end-run around appellate process—if Bourdeau believed the pick-up order invalid, her remedy was to comply and then appeal, not to defy the order and litigate its validity as a defense to contempt-like charges. This has direct implications for family law cases involving custody disputes and DCF involvement, where compliance with court orders is often contested.

The decision also illustrates the procedural requirements for self-represented litigants on appeal. Though courts recognize the pro se litigant’s practical disadvantages, appellate courts will not manufacture arguments or address claims that fail to meet Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure standards. Bourdeau’s invocation of federal civil procedure rules and UCC provisions in a state criminal proceeding, without explanation of their relevance, could not salvage her appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top