A Vinton County Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that Gary Lee Siders Sr. is not competent to stand trial on child endangerment charges. The September 9, 2026 finding also determined he is not restorable, meaning there is not a substantial probability that treatment would make him competent to proceed.
Judge Laina Fetherolf Rogers accepted a forensic evaluation report after a competency hearing. Prosecutor William Archer did not object. Siders, 73, had been charged with 16 counts of endangering children after authorities removed 16 children from a home in Hamden on June 30, 2026. His attorney, Dorian Baum, said after the hearing that the prosecution against his client is likely to end soon.
The ruling addresses only Siders’ present ability to participate in court. It is not a finding of guilt or innocence.
What “not competent to stand trial” means in Ohio
Ohio law starts with a presumption that a defendant is competent. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 2945.37, a court may find a defendant incompetent only if, after a hearing, it concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that the person’s present mental condition makes them incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings or of assisting in their own defense.
The standard comes from long-standing due process requirements. A defendant must have both a factual and rational understanding of the charges and the courtroom process, and must be able to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Mental illness or a history of treatment alone does not automatically make someone incompetent. The court looks at current functioning.
Competency is different from a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense. Competency concerns the defendant’s mental condition at the time of trial. Insanity concerns mental state at the time of the alleged offense.
Siders’ evaluation was conducted by a certified forensic center designated by the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, consistent with the procedures in Sections 2945.37 and 2945.371.
What happens after an unrestorable finding
When a defendant is found incompetent and the court determines there is not a substantial probability of restoration within the time limits in Section 2945.38, the usual next step is dismissal of the charges. A dismissal on these grounds is without prejudice. It does not bar the state from bringing the same charges again if the person later becomes competent and the statute of limitations still allows it.
The court or prosecutor may instead file an affidavit in probate court seeking civil commitment if the person meets the legal criteria as a person with a mental illness subject to court order or a person with an intellectual disability subject to institutionalization. In limited circumstances involving more serious offenses, the criminal court may also consider retaining jurisdiction under Section 2945.39 after additional findings made by clear and convincing evidence.
Siders remains subject to court monitoring, including GPS tracking after an earlier bond modification related to his medical needs. His attorney has indicated the criminal case against him is expected to conclude in the coming weeks.
The three other adults charged in the same investigation, Siders’ wife, son, and daughter-in-law, continue to face their own cases. Those proceedings are separate.
A competency ruling protects the fairness of the trial process. Ohio courts cannot proceed against a defendant who cannot understand what is happening or help their lawyer. The finding does not resolve the underlying allegations. It only determines whether this defendant can be tried at this time.
