South Carolina teacher makes shocking revelation as she appears in court for molesting boy when he was 14
Nicole Ballew Callaham, 33, voluntarily turned herself into the Anderson County Detention Center on Thursday for allegedly molesting a boy, Grant Stickland, when he was 14 years old.
On Monday, Callaham strolled into the courtroom for her bond hearing in Anderson, about 40 minutes outside of Greenville, smiling as she looked at her family support system, which included her fiancé.
'Miss Callaham is eight to nine weeks pregnant,' her attorney, William Epps III, told the judge as his client, dressed in a red prison jumpsuit, stood beside him.
Epps then asked the court to consider her presumed innocence and let her out on bond, insisting that she needs to receive prenatal care - something he said she has not gotten while behind bars.
He also said she poses no danger to the public, citing her eight-year career as an elementary school teacher and having no criminal history.
There was no suggestion by either the defense or the prosecution that the baby was conceived with the victim.
Greenville Municipal Court Judge Matthew Hawley granted her request for bond, but under several conditions.
'I am going to set a surety bond on each of these in the amount of $10,000, as they did in Anderson, for a total of $120,000 surety,' Hawley said, adding that she must remain under house arrest with GPS monitoring and cannot contact Strickland.
Callaham must also undergo a mental and physical evaluation to determine if she can stand trial, the judge ordered.
Hawley established a 'red zone' Callaham must avoid so she does not come within a mile of the victim's home in Anderson County.
Strickland, now 18, claims he was abused by the former kindergarten teacher from 2021 until 2023 in Anderson.
Authorities said the alleged abuse started when he was 14, his mom claims they first met at an audition for a Legally Blonde musical production which Callaham directed.
Callaham, who is married with children, is facing three counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Speaking outside of court following the hearing last week, Strickland told reporters he almost didn't survive the ordeal.
'I would never want someone to go through what I went through, I don't think most people could be strong enough to survive it. Because I almost didn't,' he said.
Strickland added that he hoped his coming forward would increase awareness of the issue.
He added: 'All I really want the public to know is that though it's a traumatic event I am here to fight and I'm not going to back down.'
Strickland continued: 'I think awareness needs to be brought to things like this, just because I am a man doesn't mean it should be shunned away. I was a child, I wasn't a man, I was a boy.'
On seeing Callaham, who appeared in court via livestream, he said he felt like a weight had been lifted.
'I don't think I would've been able to move on if it wasn't for the support from family and loved ones, and being able to come out about it', he added.
The Anderson County Sheriff's Office said that at the time of the allegations, Callaham was an Anderson County School teacher, she has since resigned.
The school district said that she had worked at Homeland Park Primary School from 2017 until she resigned in May of this year.
In a statement, the sheriff's office said that Callaham would sign Strickland out of school and serve as a supervisor for after-school activities.
Authorities said these repeated interactions led to a prolonged pattern of abuse, which they corroborated with warrants and help from Strickland and his family.
They added that Strickland came forward after he turned 18, having spent time processing the 'trauma associated with the abuse.'
She is also facing a number of charges in nearby Greenville County, if the bond is met she will be transported there for a separate bond hearing.
The Greenville Police Department brought similar charges against her, alleging the conduct extended into their jurisdiction as Strickland attended school there.
Following her arraignment and if the bond is met, she will be transported to the Greenville County for a separate bond hearing.
Callaham is charged with eight counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and four counts of unlawful conduct towards a child.
A trial date has not yet been set.
Strickland's mother released a statement at the hearing also, saying: 'We truly thought she believed in his talent and was helping him grow and build his confidence.
'We trusted her completely with our son, as she seemed to be a wonderful mentor to our son and other young actors and actresses by investing in them.
'Looking back, it sickens me knowing Nikki manipulated our son and our family. She was waiting on this opportunity, and she found the perfect victim and family to prey on perfect meaning.
'She saw our son's innocence and that he was very easily manipulated and drawn into her perfect meaning.
'She saw a family who had a lot of love and kindness to share with those who needed it.'
The Clemson City Police Department is also investigating the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Rubio moves to strip US visas from eight Brazilian judges in Bolsonaro battle
The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has reportedly stripped eight of Brazil's 11 supreme court judges of their US visas as the White House escalates its campaign to help the country's former president Jair Bolsonaro avoid justice over his alleged attempt to seize power with a military coup. Bolsonaro, a far-right populist with ties to Donald Trump's Maga movement, is on trial for allegedly masterminding a murderous plot to cling to power after losing the 2022 election to his leftwing rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro is expected to be convicted by the supreme court in the coming weeks and faces a jail sentence of up to 43 years. As the day of judgment nears, Trump has been increasing pressure on the court and President Lula's administration. On 9 July, the US president announced he would impose 50% tariffs on all Brazilian imports as of 1 August, partly as a result of the supposed persecution of his ally. The move triggered an outpouring of nationalist anger in the South American country, with Lula describing it as 'unacceptable blackmail'. On Friday, after federal police raided Bolsonaro's house and fitted him with an electronic tag to stop him absconding, Rubio announced further moves in support of the defendant, who he claimed was the victim of a 'political witch hunt'. Writing on X, Rubio said he had ordered visa revocations for the judge leading the investigation into Bolsonaro, Alexandre de Moraes, as well as 'his allies on the court' and their family members. Rubio did not name his other targets but the Brazilian newspaper O Globo identified them as Luís Roberto Barroso, José Antonio Dias Toffoli, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha, Luiz Edson Fachin and Gilmar Ferreira Mendes. Two other judges who were nominated to the court during Bolsonaro's 2019-23 presidency, André Mendonça and Kassio Nunes Marques, reportedly avoided the sanction, as did a third judge, Luiz Fux. Lula denounced what he called 'another arbitrary and completely groundless measure from the US government'. 'Interference in another country's justice system is unacceptable and offends the basic principles of national sovereignty and respect between nations,' the president said on Saturday, adding: 'I'm certain that no kind of intimidation or threat – from whoever it may be – will compromise the most important mission of our nation's powers and institutions, which is to act permanently to defend and safeguard the democratic rule of law.' The Trump strategist Alex Bruesewitz welcomed Rubio's announcement, calling Bolsonaro's treatment 'sick and wrong'. Bolsonaro's congressman son, Eduardo, thanked Rubio for his decision. 'Thank you very much for this fight in favor of free speech, we do believe in the same values,' tweeted Eduardo, who has been living in the US since February and has reportedly been lobbying officials there over his father's plight. Trump's interventions have appalled millions of Brazilians who hope to see their former leader held responsible for the alleged coup attempt, which culminated in the 8 January riots in Brasília. Lula's institutional relations minister, Gleisi Hoffmann, called the visa cancellations 'an aggressive and petty retaliation' and 'an affront to the Brazilian judiciary and national sovereignty'. Even influential rightwing voices have criticised the US's attempt to meddle in one of the world's most populous democracies by imposing 50% tariffs. On Saturday, the conservative Estado de São Paulo newspaper described Trump's behaviour as 'unacceptable external interference in Brazil's domestic matters'. 'Trump has not only attacked our national sovereignty … [but also] stained the history of diplomatic relations between the two largest democracies in the Americas,' the newspaper's editorial board wrote. While the Bolsonaros have hailed Trump's actions, they also appear to have grasped how the announcement of tariffs has backfired, allowing Lula to pose as a nationalist defender of Brazilian interests and paint the Bolsonaro clan as self-serving 'traitors'. Lula, who had been facing growing public disillusionment and an uphill battle to win re-election next year, has enjoyed a bounce in the polls since Trump launched his trade war, the brunt of which will be borne by coffee producers and cattle ranchers in Bolsonaro-voting regions, such as São Paulo. Celso Rocha de Barros, a political columnist, said he suspected the Bolsonaros had been blindsided by the scale of Trump's attack. 'I think [Bolsonaro] wanted some kind of penalty - something he could use to say: 'Look, Brazil's being punished because of Bolsonaro's persecution. But [the tariffs] went far too far … [they] screwed Bolsonaro's base,' said Rocha de Barros, pointing to their potential impact on agribusiness. On Friday night, Bolsonaro's senator son, Flávio, post on X, calling on Trump to suspend the tariffs and replace them with individual sanctions. Soon after, however, he deleted the post.
The Guardian
21 hours ago
- The Guardian
As a male kinder teacher I agree more needs to be done to protect children. But the solution is not to vilify people like me
My name is David, and I am a kindergarten teacher. Every time I read another headline about Joshua Dale Brown, my stomach drops. It's not just the horror of the allegations themselves – though that's devastating enough. It's knowing that the parents of the children I teach are reading these same articles. It's imagining the quiet alarm they must feel, the questions they might not voice, the shadows of doubt that may now creep into what used to be trust. It's deeply personal. I know that as a man working in early childhood education, I already carry a weight of suspicion that my female colleagues never have to shoulder. I see the difference when I'm introduced at enrolment interviews. I am acutely aware of it when I approach a child crying in the yard. I feel the hesitation, however slight, before a parent leaves their child with me for the first time – not always, but often enough. And I get it – I do. We live in a world that has given them reason to be cautious. But it doesn't make it any less painful to live beneath that constant cloud of implication. What's unbearable is watching that cloud darken when allegations like those Brown is accused of surface. Suddenly, my choice to devote my professional life to the education and wellbeing of young children is subject to renewed scrutiny. Not for the quality of my care, my experience, or my qualifications – but because of my gender. Then along comes commentary suggesting my mere presence in this field is 'an uncomfortable truth'. That somehow, simply by being male, my motivations must be questioned, that perhaps there is something unnatural or dangerous in my desire to work with children. But it is worth considering the human impact of such claims. There are thousands of male educators like me, already battling systemic underrepresentation, isolation and the persistent pressure to prove we are safe, kind and worthy of trust. I have a seven-year-old son. He still believes the world is mostly good. Thankfully, he's not reading the news or some of the commentary around this case yet. But if he did – if he saw articles implying that men like his dad might only work with children because of deviant desires, what would that teach him about masculinity, about care, about empathy? And what are we teaching society when we double down on suspicion rather than taking a wider, structural view? The issue is not that men work in early childhood education. The issue is that predators can exist in every profession and our systems of oversight, training and reporting need to be stronger – not more discriminatory. I agree much more needs to be done to protect children. That's the very reason I do this work. But the solution is not to vilify or pathologise men who choose to care for and educate young children. The solution is to overhaul a fractured system – starting with the ridiculous patchwork of state-based regulations governing early childhood education and care in Australia. We need a unified, national approach that ensures consistency, accountability and support – for children and educators alike. We need robust, mandatory training in child protection for all educators, regardless of gender. We need professional standards that uphold child safety and the dignity of workers. We need appropriate reward and remuneration to encourage the very best to answer the call of early childhood education. And we need to acknowledge that good men in this field are not the problem – they are part of the solution. The toll of being a male early childhood educator is growing heavier. Not because I'm not proud of what I do – I am. Every day I see the positive impact I have in the lives of the children I teach. I see the bonds we build, the confidence they gain, the joy we share. But I'm tired of having to explain myself. I'm tired of the quiet stigma. And I'm angry that sensational headlines and speculative think-pieces chip away at the fragile progress we've made. Children deserve the best educators – regardless of gender. And the men who choose to work in this field deserve to do so without being seen as threats. Until we address this cultural bias and build a system that truly values care and education, we will keep failing both the children and the educators who care for them. David Kelly is a kindergarten teacher in Victoria
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Ex-Peppa Pig boss ‘loses £300,000 after he was sacked for brandishing a pen at his boss' in five-year court battle
AN EX-Peppa Pig exec has lost £300,000 after being sacked for threatening his boss with pen. Mark Dowding, who earned up to £160,000 a year at toy giant The Character Group PLC, was given the boot and left with a hefty bill after a five-year court battle. The former chief financial officer, who may be forced to sell his home and pension, was dismissed in 2017 after a breakdown in trust, following a heated row with his boss where he allegedly pointed a pen in a threatening way. He took the company, makers of Peppa Pig plushies and Doctor Who toys, to an employment tribunal, claiming he was unfairly dismissed and that the pen incident was fabricated. But in 2020 Employment Judge Omar Khalil said: "The tribunal concludes that the incident as described by [Mr Dowding's boss] did occur, which included the claimant pointing towards him brandishing a pen in a threatening manner." Despite the ruling, the former Peppa Pig exec launched several appeals. LEGAL BATTLE Despite the ruling, Dowding launched several appeals and a High Court claim, running up eye-watering legal costs. One remaining claim is still live- but he's now been told it will be struck out unless he coughs up the £288,000 he owes from his failed legal bids. High Court judge Richard Spearman KC said the financial blow puts Dowding at risk of losing his £850,000 home and his pension, his only regular income. The judge quoted Greek tragedy writer Sophocles, saying: "It is a painful thing to look at your own trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it'. He added: "That, in my view, is the predicament in which the claimant Mr Dowding now finds himself." THE PEN INCIDENT Mr Dowding joined The Character Group in 2012 and was earning £110,000 plus a potential 50 per cent bonus by the time of his dismissal. The 2017 incident unfolded during a heated meeting with his boss, Mr Shah. Judge Khalil said: "Their discussion became heated and voices were raised. "The claimant accepted in evidence he raised his voice first. "Mr Shah also alleged that the claimant had pointed a pen towards him, causing Mr Shah to retreat. "This was set out in his email, which followed this altercation on the same day. "In that email, Mr Shah said: 'You raised your voice towards me in a threatening manner and pointed a pen in my face whilst rolling forward towards me with your chair. I had to roll my chair back to prevent injury to my face'.' THE FIGHT GOES ON After losing at tribunal, Dowding refused to back down, instead filing a flurry of appeals and launching a High Court claim. In December 2023, an order was made securing his legal costs against the equity in his Rotherhithe Street home in south London. Judge Spearman said: "Essentially as a result of the way in which he chose to plead his case and to contest the efforts of TCG to restrict that case to what is properly arguable, a number of substantial orders for costs were made against Mr Dowding in July 2024. "Mr Dowding sought, but was refused, permission to appeal against those orders to the Court of Appeal. "According to the disclosure Mr Dowding has provided, his only source of income is his personal pension, and his only substantial assets are his personal pension fund and the equity in his home. "He now faces losing that fund, and maybe also his home, to meet those costs orders. "He is in a very unhappy position because, on the disclosure he has made, he can ill-afford to meet these costs liabilities: either his home may be forfeit or his pension may be forfeit - possibly, if things go on the way they have, both. "That is a consequence of bringing and pursuing expensive litigation which has all been unsuccessful, resulting in the costs orders." 5
