Two Hancock County women say the local child welfare and juvenile court systems are failing the very children they are supposed to protect. In detailed letters to the editor, Jamie Meade and Heidi Roby describe a pattern of delayed action, blocked family placements, and a lack of basic transparency that they believe has left dozens of children in government custody unnecessarily.

Allegations of Ignored Kinship Laws

Meade’s letter is a tightly documented complaint alleging “ongoing systemic misconduct” by Hancock County Job & Family Services – Children’s Protective Services and the juvenile court. She argues that local practice is out of step with both Ohio law and federal child‑welfare mandates that strongly favor placing children with safe, willing relatives whenever possible.

She points specifically to:

• Ohio statutes that require agencies to identify, notify, and assess relatives early in a case, and to prioritize the “least restrictive” placement options, including kinship care.

• Federal Title IV‑E requirements that states show due diligence in locating relatives and make “reasonable efforts” to preserve or reunify families.

• The Adoption and Safe Families Act’s demand for timely, lawful permanency planning, not open‑ended custody or delay.

According to Meade, those mandates are being routinely ignored. She describes cases where relatives step forward but:

• Are never properly assessed through home studies or background checks.

• Are told they must first hire counsel and file to “intervene” in court—an extra legal hurdle not required by statute for kinship consideration.

• Are rejected without written findings or individualized reasons, leaving families with no clear explanation or path to challenge decisions.

She also alleges that entire families have been “blanket disqualified” based on bureaucratic discretion rather than case‑by‑case evaluation, and that visitation and contact have been restricted in ways that appear inconsistent with reasonable‑efforts requirements toward reunification.

Numbers That Raise Questions

Meade backs her concerns with county‑level data. In documents she cites, Hancock County reportedly had 81 children in custody in 2024, with only one placed in kinship care, and 102 children in custody in 2025, with 22 in kinship care while more than 80 remained in agency placements.

On paper, Ohio and federal policy treat kinship placement as a first‑line option. Yet Meade argues these numbers show a system defaulting to foster care and institutional placements, not family connections. She suggests this may put the county out of compliance with funding rules tied to Title IV‑E and other federal streams that require documented kinship efforts and least‑restrictive placements.

The financial questions go further: her letter raises concerns about possible misuse or misallocation of Title IV‑E and Title IV‑D funds, along with local levy dollars, if the county is accepting money premised on following laws it is not actually meeting.

“Fit and Willing” Relatives Say They’re Shut Out

Meade emphasizes that the issue is not a lack of safe relatives but a refusal to use them. She notes her own background as a long‑time licensed massage therapist who has hosted multiple foreign exchange students, without disqualifying history. She says her sister—a director of nursing married to a retired chief of police—has fostered six children and currently cares for three, yet the family has been “blanket denied” in Hancock County cases.

“They have blanket denied every single person that came forward and have never utilized Kinnect to Families,” Meade writes, referring to Ohio’s statewide program designed to locate and support kinship connections.

The result, she argues, is that children are being kept away from fit, willing, and experienced caregivers who are ready to step in, while the county maintains high custody numbers year after year.

Parents Describe a Confusing, Opaque System

Where Meade’s letter is legalistic and data‑driven, Heidi Roby’s is more personal and reflective, but the core concern is similar: families who raise serious safety issues or seek help from the system often feel lost and unheard.

Roby, who identifies herself as a parent in ongoing proceedings, describes navigating a maze of multiple agencies, unclear responsibilities, and delayed responses. She does not name specific officials or cases, but she says that when child‑safety allegations arise, families need:

• Clear, consistent processes.

• Transparent communication about what is happening and why.

• Accountability when agencies don’t follow their own rules.

“Many parents are not asking for special treatment,” Roby writes. “Only for their concerns to be heard, properly reviewed, and addressed with the seriousness they deserve.”

Her goal, she says, is not to target individuals but to spark “a larger conversation” about whether child‑protection systems are truly working for the families who depend on them.

Calls for Oversight, Transparency, and Reform

Meade’s letter explicitly asks for:

• An independent review or investigation of Hancock County child‑welfare practices.

• Media coverage to bring public visibility to kinship‑placement failures and due‑process issues.

• Guidance on which state or federal oversight bodies can step in when local agencies appear out of compliance.

• Advocacy to ensure the county meets its obligations under kinship and family‑preservation laws.

Both writers stress that this is ultimately about children’s rights and family rights—including constitutional due‑process protections when the state intervenes in family life.

They acknowledge that child‑protection work is complex and that not every allegation against a system will prove true. But they argue that when families present documented patterns of missed kinship placements, opaque decision‑making, and confusing or delayed responses to safety concerns, the public has a right to ask hard questions and demand clear answers.

For now, Meade and Roby are among the local voices pushing for those answers—and inviting others with similar experiences to step forward so that Hancock County’s child‑welfare system can be examined in full daylight.

 

“You can see what’s going on if you’re willing to open your eyes”

I am writing to request your assistance, and potential investigation into ongoing systemic misconduct involving child welfare proceedings in Hancock County, Ohio.

Through direct involvement and extensive documentation, I have uncovered patterns of conduct by Hancock County Children Services and the juvenile court that raise serious concerns under both Ohio law and federal child welfare mandates.

Specifically, the agency and court have engaged in practices that appear to conflict with:

• Ohio Revised Code §§ 2151.4116–2151.412 (mandatory kinship identification, notification, and case planning)
• Ohio Administrative Code 5101:2-42-05 and 5101:2-42-18 (least restrictive placement and required kinship assessment)
• 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) and § 671(a)(29) (Title IV-E requirements for kinship preference and due diligence in locating relatives)
• 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) (reasonable efforts toward family preservation and reunification)
• The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which requires timely and lawful permanency planning—not systemic delay or obstruction

Despite these mandates, the following patterns have been documented:

1. Systemic failure to identify, notify, and assess available relatives within statutory timeframes.
2. Complete absence of home studies, background checks, or individualized determinations for multiple qualified family members.
3. Requirement that all relatives file for formal intervention simply to be considered for placement—effectively creating a barrier not required by law.
4. Denial of kinship placement without written findings or documented justification, contrary to due process requirements.
5. Reliance on hearsay evidence and “trial by ambush” tactics, where critical information is withheld until hearings.
6. Abuse of discretion resulting in blanket disqualification of entire families without individualized assessment.
7. Restriction of visitation and family contact inconsistent with statutory “reasonable efforts” obligations.

These practices are not isolated incidents but reflect a broader systemic pattern. I have many that you can interview. Publicly available data reflects that, in 2024, Hancock County had approximately 81 children in custody with only 1 placed in kinship care, raising significant concerns regarding compliance with both state and federal funding requirements tied to kinship placement. In 2025 they had 102 children and placed 22 in kinship still holding above 80 kids in custody, which seems to be a quota.

Additionally, concerns exist regarding the misuse or misallocation of federal Title IV-E funds, Title IV-D funding structures, and local levy resources, all of which are conditioned upon compliance with federal and state child welfare laws.

The cumulative effect of these actions has resulted in the separation of children from fit and willing family members without lawful process, raising serious concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment, including violations of procedural and substantive due process. I have hosted 6 foreign exchange students and a medical license massage therapist of 24 years – nothing obviously in my background. My sister is a director of nursing -her husband a retired chief of police and they’ve fostered 6 children and currently have 3 of the 6. They have blanket denied every single person that came forward and have never utilized Kinnect to families.

I am seeking assistance in the following areas:

• Independent review or investigation of Hancock County’s child welfare practices
• Media exposure to bring transparency and public awareness to these systemic issues
• Guidance on appropriate state or federal oversight agencies that can intervene
• Advocacy support to ensure compliance with kinship placement laws and constitutional protections

I have preserved documentation, transcripts, and supporting evidence substantiating these concerns and am prepared to provide them upon request.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed with the urgency it warrants, as the rights of children and families continue to be affected.

Sincerely,
Jamie Meade

 

I recently read about local families speaking out regarding concerns within the child welfare and court systems, and I felt compelled to share that I am experiencing similar challenges.

As a parent currently involved in ongoing proceedings, I have encountered a system that can be difficult to navigate when serious child-safety concerns are raised. Like others, I have found myself seeking answers across multiple agencies, without clear direction or meaningful resolution.

This is not about assigning blame to any one individual. Rather, it reflects a broader concern: when allegations involving the safety and well-being of a child arise, families need clear processes, accountability, and timely responses that prioritize protection above all else.

I believe many parents are not asking for special treatment — only for their concerns to be heard, properly reviewed, and addressed with the seriousness they deserve.

My hope in sharing this is to contribute to a larger conversation about how we can ensure that systems intended to protect children are working as effectively and transparently as possible for the families who rely on them.

Sincerely,
Heidi Roby