Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Ohio 'House of Horrors' Grandma Begs for Freedom

Episode Date: July 29, 2026

Christina "Lynn" Siders, 66, is the grandmother of 16 children removed from a home in Vinton County, Ohio, on June 30, 2026. Christina faces 16 counts of felony child endangering along with her husband, Gary Siders, Sr., and her son and daughter-in-law, Gary Siders Jr. and Elizabeth Siders. All four have pleaded not guilty. Now, Christina's lawyer has asked that her client be released on bail, and she wants her mental fitness evaluated. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy has the details in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Ron O'Brien https://www.facebook.com/RonOBrienFranklinCountyProsecutorCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Van DinhGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

66 years old, they are the younger members of the family's children, and I don't know what her mental state is. The grandmother, accused of child endangering in Ohio's so-called House of Horrors case, has some big requests, and her attorney is telling us exactly what happened the day Christina Siders and her family were arrested and taken to jail. I have all of the details. I'm Ann Janette Levy, and this is crime fix. Christina Siders is a grandmother and a mother. She's a wife and she wants out of jail. Christina Siders is accused of abusing 16 of her grandchildren by allowing them to live in conditions in a home in Vinton County, Ohio that the sheriff said weren't fit for livestock. The children who were removed from the home, according to the prosecutor, suffered serious physical harm.

The nature of the physical and emotional issues the children are dealing with remains under wraps. we know all 16, including an 18-year-old, are in therapeutic foster care. Therapeutic foster care, it's different from traditional foster care. The caregivers are specially trained to help children who may have emotional or behavioral issues. The county had to find families to take in all 16 children. Let that sink in. Christina faces those child-endangering charges, and so does her husband, Gary Sider, Sr., their son, Gary Jr., and his wife, Elizabeth Siders, they face the same charges for their 16 children. All four have pleaded not guilty to these charges. Now, they are just waiting to see when the case will be presented to a grand jury and what

happens when the grand jury returns indictments. And it's possible the grand jury doesn't indict members of the Siders family. That's a possibility, but that seems very, very unlikely. And as three of the Siders family members remain in custody in Southeast Ohio, two of them want to be released from jail. Elizabeth Sider's attorney has asked that her bail be modified saying she can't post any bail and wants to be reunited with her children. And now Christina Siders, the grandmother of the children, is also asking Judge Rogers to modify the terms of her bail. Christina, Gary Jr. and Elizabeth are being held on a $300,000 bond. Not one of them can post that much cash, not even close. That's painfully clear in this case.

And if they did post bail, they would have to wear a GPS monitoring bracelet. And now Christina Sider's lawyer is asking that she'd be released from jail and her attorney wants a mental health evaluation for her client. Attorney Kanda Roberts wrote, on June 30th, 2026, law enforcement arrived at defendant's home with the purpose of serving another member of defendant's household with an arrest warrant for unrelated misdemeanor charges. Nonetheless, defendant was detained and arrested outside her home. After providing a statement and cooperating with law enforcement during an interrogation at the Vinton County Sheriff's Office without counsel present, defendant was ultimately charged by complaint with one charge of endangering children, a second-degree

felony for each of her 16 grandchildren who had been residing with their parents in defendants' rented home. Defendant has remained incarcerated since her arrest. I should point out, this was not just sheriff's deputies and agents with the state's Bureau of Criminal Investigation serving an arrest warrant on Gary Jr. for misdemeanor charges. Law enforcement has said they went to this home to execute a search warrant, searching for evidence of a crime they have yet to disclose. The manner in which those documents were sealed is being challenged at the Ohio Supreme Court. Bail is, of course, supposed to ensure that a person charged with a crime shows up for court. It's not supposed to be a punishment. Robert's cited case law writing, if a court orders financial conditions of release, those financial conditions shall be related to

public safety, the defendant's risk of non-appearance in court, the seriousness of the offense, and the previous criminal record of the defendant. Roberts continued, the court must consider the defendant's ability to pay. Setting a high bail in order to keep someone accused of a crime incarcerated pretrial is both statutorily and constitutionally unlawful. Christina Seider's lawyer also questions the weight of the evidence against her. The state has charged defendant with endangering children, which would require evidence that on or about June 30th, 2026, defendant did abuse each of her 16 grandchildren and that she caused serious physical harm to every one of the children. Today, the defense has received scant evidence suggesting

defendant committed any of the alleged offenses. The weight of the evidence against defendant is minimal. In fact, to date, there is no evidence that has been provided, which would support the finding that defendant committed any acts of abuse, let alone that any of the children suffered serious physical harm because of abuse by defendant. To date, the state has presented evidence only that defendant resided and was present in the home on June 30, 2026, and that the conditions of the home were unsanitary to the extent that the removal of the children from the custody of their parents was deemed necessary by authorities. Christina Sider's attorney says she has no prior criminal record, and while she can't return to the home on Omer Street, she has a place to stay

if she's granted bail. Roberts wrote, defendant has strong family support. In fact, in release, defendant will reside with close family members who are capable and available to assist in ensuring defendant's appearance at future court proceedings and defendant's compliance with any conditions of pretrial release imposed by this court. Defendant's financial resources are limited, as demonstrated by her indigent status. As such, she has no resources or access to means which would make her a significant risk of flight to avoid prosecution. Defendant has resided in southeastern Ohio all her life. Defendant has no family or other connections outside of the area. Defendant requires medical treatment related to her mental condition and many documented medical

diagnoses, all of which can be addressed while defendant is not incarcerated in jail. Roberts continued writing, None of the statutory or constitutional factors relevant to this court's consideration of defendant's request that she be released on bail way in the state's favor. Rather, each and every factor weighs heavily in defendant's favor. Defendant poses no threat to the public. Defendant is not a flight risk. Defendant's lack of criminal history, age, medical concerns, family support, attorney-client relationship and condition that she will be placed on GPS monitoring. in release all demonstrate that she is not a flight risk and that she will appear in all future

court appearances. Keep in mind, each defendant has waived his or her right to a preliminary hearing, which would have required prosecutors to present evidence to show there was probable cause that each of them had committed a crime. The case hasn't even gone to a grand jury that we know of. Now, Christina Sider's lawyer, she's not just asking for her client to be released on bail. she also wants her competency to stand trial evaluated. Attorneys for Gary Jr. and Gary Sr. have also made that request. Roberts wrote, defendant by and through counsel and pursuant to revise code hereby raises the issue of her competence to stand trial. Counsel has reason to believe that defendant is unable to fully comprehend the proceedings in this court and is unable to assist counsel in the

preparation and defense of this case. Defendant moves this court to order that defendant undergo a competency evaluation to determine if defendant has the capacity to stand trial and upon receipt of an evaluation report set a hearing to determine competency. Now, there are certainly more questions than answers in this case, including the biggest. How did this happen? And how did Gary Sider Sr. and Christina Siders go from looking well and clean in this 2023 photo posted on Facebook to living in squalor and looking unwell now in 2026. So let's dig into these motions filed by Christina Sider's attorney. I want to bring in Ron O'Brien.

He is the former Franklin County prosecutor, the elected prosecutor, was for many years in Columbus, Ohio. So Ron, thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it. I'm glad to talk with you again about this very interesting case. Yes, it's very interesting. and we have more questions than answers at this point. So, Ron, talk to me if you would, about let's start with the competency request. This is now the third defendant of the four in this case, who is raising the issue of competency.

Are you surprised by that? No, not at all. I think just by the nature of the offense itself, what's publicly been disclosed, you have to even ask yourself, what are these people doing? What are they thinking? did this happen? You know, 16 children, or actually 18 children born, over a period of 15 years, some of them twins, but wondering what's going on there. And so, as many people will ask themselves, you know, is there something wrong with them? And so I think that itself causes you to think

that maybe there should be a preliminary psychiatric psychological exam of the defendants. So we have grandma now. Her attorney, Candor Roberts, is with the Ohio Public Defender's Office. So they're going to do everything they can to help their client, of course, as any defense attorney would. What's the next step here? I mean, the judge, I'm assuming, Judge Rogers, is going to say, yeah, let's go, let's do it. let's order the competency evaluation. So what do you see happening as grandma's competency is evaluated? I think you're correct that the trial judge will order the competency exam. Sometimes

the defense attorney offers more to the judge as a basis to order the competency exam, such as when I visited the offender in the jail, they couldn't tell me about the offense or they talked about other things or they couldn't remember things kind of the questions that the psychologist is by statute required to look into but in this case it was a bare-boned motion that merely said I have questions whether or not the defendant's competent therefore I'd like to ask for an exam despite the lack of reasons being offered I think the trial judge will order the competency exam perhaps just based on the offense itself, the age of the offender, and the request by the defense attorney.

Because they're obviously, she may have interviewed the defendant for hours in the jail and reached that conclusion herself, but she just doesn't want to talk about it in her motion. So I think it will inquire into those two basic questions. Do they understand the nature and quality of the charges against them, which shouldn't be hard, I think, to understand you're charged with endangering children, causing their harm and by neglect, essentially. And then the second point that is always necessary is can they assist their lawyer in providing a defense?

And that's more often the basis for someone being found incompetent. Let's say, let's just do a hypothetical here, that the reviewer and the court find that she is incompetent to stand trial. That doesn't mean that competency can't be restored. We've seen that in a number of cases over the years where somebody is deemed incompetent, then they are sent to some type of institution, and they work on them by whatever means that is to get them to a level where they can assist in their own defense. I think that's exactly correct.

What will happen is if they order the exam, she'll probably be examined in the county jail, unless this second motion they filed about a reduction in bond that they can post is granted. But she'll be examined in the county jail, interviewed by a psychologist appointed by the court. They will ask her background questions, questions about the offense, questions about her relationship with her lawyer. And usually they administer psychological tests to determine reasoning and understanding, communication. All of those are key things. Obviously, if you're charged with a serious crime, being able to talk with your lawyer about. So they give a battery of psychological tests, and that then is part of their report.

And then they render the conclusion one way or another if there would be a finding by the initial examiner that she's incompetent. The state has the opportunity to ask for a second exam, and at least if it will come out contrary to that, the court itself then can appoint a third examiner kind of as a tiebreaker or can consider the two competing examinations. I recently had a case where the first representing the defendant, or no, in that case, I was representing the defendant. where, or in that case, I was representing the victim. Under a high law, the victim has a right to their own attorney. And after the first exam, they determined that he was incompetent to stand trial.

I asked the prosecutor to seek a second opinion, which they did. And the second opinion reached that they were competent. And the report that that examiner provided caused the first psychologist to change their mind. And there was then a finding that they're competent. So, you know, I used to like to call some of these kind of exams Voodoo Science, but they're professional opinions by qualified experts. Some of them have different kinds of leanings and biases. But in any event, the first exam is probably the most important because either side,

if they agree with it and it's documented well, it can be accepted and be the the basis for the finding a competency or in competency. Let's move on now to the issue of bail. Right now, Christina, Gary Jr. and Elizabeth, they're all being held on a $300,000 bond. We know they can't post this. We get it. We know. So she wants her client released on bail.

She said she has supportive family members who would make sure she gets to court appearances, etc. How likely is this to be granted? reduction in bail because we don't even have a grand jury indictment right now. That's correct. We don't know what the jury's going to do. So there's no indictment and actually she's not, she's now going to be examined for a competency and generally the psychologist would want

the easy availability to the defendant, which occurs when they're in custody. And so I think that the chances of a reduction are probably 50-50. And when I say that, it may not be a reduction that causes her to be able to post that bond. Because the public defender mentioned their means are very limited. And if I'm the trial judge and trying to insulate myself from perhaps a habeas corpus petition, which would be a basis to test the amount of the bail, I might reduce the bond from 300,000 to 100,000. Well, she can't post either of those bonds. but at least you have reduced the bond that was set,

and the standard being whether the bond is, quote, unquote, reasonable. The Ohio Constitution was amended because of some adverse, at least from the state standpoint, decisions on what should be considered by a trial judge. The Ohio Constitution was amended in 2022 to permit the trial judge to consider, in addition to may they appear at subsequent court hearings, to whether or not the public safety is served by that, and whether or not in this case probably applicable, whether or not there's any risk of further harm to victims. And in this case, where is she going to go if she was given a signature bond today? Well, the only place she has to go is back to the house where

these children were held. I don't know what other family. when they talk about family support, I don't know whether family they have, that wasn't indicated, but besides her husband who himself is being examined for competency and the children, which are in the custody of adult or children protective services, what family would she go to? Where would she live? Those are, I think, important questions. There are some interesting little nuggets that she dropped. Candor Roberts dropped in this motion to reduce bail.

She's essentially saying, and we can see where their defense is going to be, what their defense is going to be in this case. But she's essentially saying, look, my client was paying the rent at this place. They were staying there. These are their kids. You know, they are her grandchildren. However, it was still her home. So what responsibility do you still have if you have a family, family members with 16 kids living in your home and they go in and they find feces and trash all over the floor and it's disgusting, as the prosecutors and the sheriff's office have said, what responsibility do you still have as the grandmother to ensure that these children are living in a safe environment?

Well, at least that question is, I think certainly grandma has that kind of responsibility, but is it a legal responsibility if you fail to meet it? Are you subject to prosecution for endangering children? And at least, I think, because of the relationship, say she was just a landlord and was letting friends live there for, you know, several hundred a month. It might be a different situation, but since she's a grandmother of the children, I'm I think that she would meet that minimal responsibility of needing to do something in the face of what has been described as very horrific neglect at the premises. The Vinton County Children's Services, they're going to be seeking permanent custody of these children. The county prosecutor told the county commissioners that just in the last couple of weeks. I mean, that was before, you know, this week, it was like two weeks ago. That early on, what does that tell you if they're seeking permanent custody that early on? Well, they would have to have a hearing before the juvenile probate judge there in Vinton County. They would have to file an abuse, neglect, dependency kind of charge, which is a separate kind of administrative proceeding in front of the juvenile court judge to make that determination whether the children are at risk, which that's the allegation.

and whether the custody of the children should not be with these parents or grandparents who had such neglectful conduct over a period of time. So it tells you that they think they have a strong case, number one, and it also tells you that they're willing to go forward at some kind of hearing in juvenile court in the very near future to justify that claim. Candid Roberts, the attorney for Christina Siders, also said that her client has cooperated with this investigation. She said she was interrogated for hours at the sheriff's office on the day that they were arrested without counsel present. So what does that say to you? I mean, she is dropping these nuggets for the judge to say, look, my client's not a threat to anybody, not a threat to the public.

She's not a flight risk. You know, she's 66 years old. She doesn't have a prior criminal record. she's been cooperative. Is all of this just to show, it sounds like she's just arguing like, look, this wasn't my client's problem. She's just letting these people live in her house.

I think that's exactly setting up a defense, number one, but number two, probably true. She's 66 years old. They are the younger members of the family's children. And I don't know what her mental sense. state is from the looks of her husband and the statements by her husband's lawyer, it sounds like he may not have, he may have more problems than she did in trying to live day to day and address issues. But it's just, I think, setting up the defense, but it also likely is factual.

Interesting. Well, it's going to be interesting to see where this goes and where the judge allows it to go because there's still the fact that these people shared addresses in Gallia County. So they were living together at a house on honeysuckle in Gallia County when the truancy action was filed. So these people have been living together for a really long time. And you would think also with regard to that issue that a grandparent would understand that it's in the child's interest and required by law that they attend. school when they reach a certain age and most of the children, or least more than half of them, were over that mandatory minimum age. And as we talked about last week, they in fact had truancy

charges filed on them that never went forward because they couldn't get serviced. So either they left that place and didn't leave a forwarding location in Gallia County or the sheriff's office or children's services down there or the truancy officer. Each school district by statute has the ability and does appoint what they call a truancy officer. And so all of them didn't follow up once they filed the charge. Yeah. It's really something you would think that Gallia, when they tried to do that, would try to put out a, you know, be on the lookout or something.

But I don't know how all of that works. We don't do a lot of truancy cases here on law and crime. but now we're dealing with one. Ron O'Brien, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Good to see you again. Good to see you. So as of now, all three defendants, Christina, Gary Jr. and Elizabeth remain in jail on that $300,000 bond. Prosecutors have not responded to these motions filed by Elizabeth's attorney and Christina's attorney to modify their bail. So when they do, we'll let you know what they say. You can read all of the records related to the Cider's case. we have the entire case file on our app, Law and Crime Plus.

Check it out. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Annionette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.