COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Allen County Children Services in its dispute with Celina-based foster parents Brian and Kelly Anderson and the Mercer County Probate Court regarding the Andersons’ attempts at adopting a foster child they had cared for.
On May 10, Children Services had filed a writ of prohibition with the court in an attempt to prevent Mercer County Probate Court from exercising an adoptive placement order for the Andersons to receive M.S., a 22-month-old girl they had fostered for about two years, since she was 13 days old. Children Services placed M.S. with a relative living in Indiana in March, while the Andersons were hopeful to adopt her.
The removal led to a social media campaign, #bringmaddyhome, which saw many individuals, groups and businesses in Celina offering support for the Andersons. Allen County Children Services, however, asserted that Allen County Juvenile Court maintained jurisdiction over the child and that proper procedures were followed when determining her permanent placement.
“We have maintained throughout the entire case from our first involvement days after the child’s birth that Judge (Glenn) Derryberry’s court had jurisdiction, and that’s what we were responsible to follow,” Children Services executive director Cynthia Scanland said. “That’s what we did in according to local, county, state and federal expectations.”
While proponents for the Andersons pointed to sections in Ohio’s Revised Code that listed the birth mother as one of the parties able to request placement of a child, which was the case with M.S., attorney Terri Kohlreiser of the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office pointed to multiple Supreme Court rulings saying that once a court has been given jurisdiction over a foster child, in this case the Allen County Juvenile Court, another court cannot assert jurisdiction.
“It’s affirming to get the Supreme Court’s judgement that the Mercer County court did not have jurisdiction, preventing them from exercising it and upholding Judge Derryberry’s,” Scanland said. “The interpretation of the law under the circumstances of this case was so critical to Ohio public children service agencies. It would have had such a significant impact on the ability of these agencies to do child protective work and could have established a precidence that would have had an adverse impact on child protection.”
The Supreme Court has not yet released a written summary outlining its rationale for its decision. Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, along with Justices Judith Ann Lazinger, Sharon Kennedy, Judith French and William O’Neill concurred with the decision, while Justices Paul Pfeifer and Terrence O’Donnell dissented.
Attempts to reach Brian Anderson for comment were unsuccessful.
.neFileBlock {
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
padding-bottom: 5px;
padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
font-size: 85%;
}
