I've been off the radar for a while. There's been a bit of a lull with the Lexi case and only little blips here and there of a few others I've been following. I admit, I feel bad because this case was one I'd been wanting to write about for several months.
Back in March, Allen County Children's Services moved a 21 month old foster child from her foster home and to the home of a relative that already had custody of an older sibling. The child had been removed from her mother at birth and placed with the foster family as purely a fostering situation. Reunification efforts had been made, but due to the mother's inability to cooperate, ACCS moved to the next step and that was relative placement.
This is where it all gets a little weird.
It had come to the attention of those involved that the mother had been working with the foster family in an effort to allow the foster family to adopt the toddler shortly before the child had been moved. They'd been working on a private adoption in Mercer county. The adoption was granted two weeks after the child had been removed from the foster home. Apparently the foster couple, Brian and Kelly Anderson, had misrepresented themselves in order to obtain the adoption. They claimed that the child had been placed in their home as an adoptive placement and even claimed she was in their custody. So adoption granted and the judge demanded the child's immediate return. Allen County dug in their heels and challenged Mercer County's orders based on lack of jurisdiction.
In June of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mercer County had overstepped and did not have jurisdiction. I cannot find the OSC document, but here is the article talking about the case:
Court Rules In Favor of Allen County
Brian and Kelly Anderson cried foul on their respective social media accounts (as well as a Bring Maddy Home page). It had even come to public attention that they were in the process of having their foster license revoked due to breaking confidentiality rules and trying to wrangle a shady adoption out from under ACCS's nose.
I assumed this case was done and it was cut and dried. Allen County had legal custody and at that time, had been the only ones with the authority to decide where the child would reside. The mother didn't have custody and had no legal authority to decide where the child went. And yet, she was able to arrange a private adoption with the foster family? Last time I checked on things, you couldn't adopt out a kid you didn't have custody of.
It seemed that the Andersons and mother's war cry were based on the mom "having the right to decide her child's best interest", or something to that effect. Okay, so they think mom should have the right to adopt her kid out while the child is in CPS custody? The Andersons are freakin' foster parents, so they know damned well how the laws work. It's a dependency case. You can't circumvent Children's Services and try to adopt the kid out from behind everyone's back, especially a kid you don't even have legal or physical custody of! It's not rocket science.
Now I know many who are probably thinking "But hey, Dorkzilla, the Andersons had the child until she was 21 months old, that family was all she knew". I get that they'd had the child for a length of time, but as foster parents, this meant that they would never have her permanently. Just like the Pages out of California, they were nothing more than temporary caregivers until permanency could take place. And in the case of this toddler, ACCS had decided that if the child couldn't go back to her mother than the mother's sister would take her, seeing that she already had custody of one of the mother's other children. The mother really had no say over placement preference in this instance. She could certainly make suggestions, but the final say was with Allen County.
Well, it appears that the Andersons had challenged the June ruling and the Ohio Supreme Court issued a new one. A complete 180 from their original June ruling. Now they claim Mercer County did have authority and that since mom had not been TPR'd, she had a right to decide placement for private adoption.
State ex rel. Allen County Children's Services
The aunt was forced immediately to turn the child over to ACCS so they could take her back to the child hoarding Anderson clan.
This ruling turns dependency law on its damned head.
When a child is deemed abused/neglected and made a ward of the state, the county which took the child generally has the jurisdiction. They have the final say in all aspects of that's child's life until the child is then returned to the legal custody of a parent or guardian. The general rule of dependency law is that if reunification with the parent does not work out, family placement is considered the next step. Allowing unrelated foster parents to adopt the child is supposed to be a last resort. The Andersons took the child in as a foster child and were there to help in reunification efforts. Those efforts fell through. So, as planned, the child was sent to live with an aunt who had been approved as placement and already had custody of an older sibling. Nowhere in depedency law can a parent adopt their kid out from foster care without the green light from the county/agency that holds legal custody of the child.
It's sad that so many support the Andersons, even with the lies they told to get the first fraudulent adoption and the smear campaign they ran against the county and judges involved. The mother has all but rubbed this ill gotten victory in her sister's face, clearly showing that she cared nothing for the child her sister already had or the child who was now being forced to live with strangers. Strangers who will slam the door in everyone's face first chance they have. They got their prize. They have no use for any of them now.
The courts need to realize the error in their ruling and send Maddy back home to her aunt and brother. This is where she belongs. Don't allow her drug addicted manipulative mother to run the show and don't let the Andersons bully you into rolling over with this. What does that tell your public? That you cower to drug addicts and entitled adopters who hoard children like various nick knacks? Dependency law has always been clear - family first, especially if said family is already raising siblings. Even the mother's two oldest children have cried foul of this ruling. The whole family is reeling. They want Maddy back home so she can grow up with her siblings and family, not become another accessory to a man and a woman who collect more children than they know what to do with.
