Elizabeth Siders Will Be Evaluated: Is She Competent to Stand Trial?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Criminally Obsessed

Episode: Elizabeth Siders Will Be Evaluated: Is She Competent to Stand Trial?

Date: August 12, 2026
Host: Ann Emerson
Guest: Dr. Leslie Dobson, Forensic Psychologist

---

Overview

This episode of Criminally Obsessed dives into the high-profile Ohio child welfare case of Elizabeth Siders, whose 16 children were found in dire conditions. As Siders faces charges of child endangerment, the spotlight turns to whether she is competent to stand trial—a necessary step before she can enter a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. Host Ann Emerson seeks expert insight from Dr. Leslie Dobson, a forensic psychologist with deep experience in competency evaluations, to unpack what these evaluations entail, how they impact proceedings, and what might be next for Siders and similar cases.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introducing the Siders Case & Competency Question

• Case Background:
  • Elizabeth Siders and her husband face 16 counts of child endangerment after their children were found in deplorable conditions ([00:00]-[00:33]).
  • Siders’ demeanor, described by her attorney, was “timid,” “exhausted,” and she “looked distraught” ([00:25]; Attorney via Emerson).
• The Legal Roadblock:
  • The court requires Siders be found competent to stand trial before she can enter an insanity defense ([00:33]).
  • The evaluation process is complex, extending far beyond a simple interview ([01:36]).

2. What is a Competency Evaluation?

• Expert Explanation:
  • Dr. Dobson describes competency restoration as involving mock trials and intensive training:

    “We set up a whole trial room. I acted as a DA or a prosecutor or a judge... and we try and see if you can get through putting your plea forward.” ([01:36], Dr. Dobson)

• Frequency:
  • About a quarter of jail bookings prompted competency evaluations, commonly when the lawyer couldn’t communicate effectively with the client ([03:32]).

3. Siders’ Background & Psychological Complexity

• Life History:
  • Siders was reportedly pregnant since age 13, married at 15—raising questions about trauma, coercion, and psychological captivity ([04:07], Emerson; [04:38], Dobson).
  • Dr. Dobson reflects on how prolonged, repeated pregnancies could have impacted Siders’ mental health:

    “Hormonally and psychologically, what is this woman’s makeup when all she’s done is she’s been pregnant and then she’s given birth and then gotten pregnant again? It’s unimaginable.” ([06:14], Dr. Dobson)

• Balancing Victimhood and Responsibility:
  • Discussion centers on Siders’ agency versus victimization, acknowledging potential elements of coercive control, substance use, and the blurred line between victim and perpetrator ([04:38], [16:05]).

4. Legal Distinctions: Competency vs. Insanity

• Definitions:
  • Competency: Rational, factual understanding of the legal process.
  • Insanity: Lacking knowledge that actions were wrong at the time of the offense ([06:42]–[06:58]).
  • Siders must be found competent before she can pursue an insanity defense ([07:37], Dobson).
• Restoration Process:
  • Those found incompetent may undergo lengthy restoration, sometimes up to three years—and sometimes never reach competency ([09:30]; [09:43], Dobson).
• Potential Outcomes:
  • If competency is never achieved, defendants may be released or remain in alternative care ([09:43]).

5. Practicalities of Competency Restoration

• Details on the Program:
  • Highly structured environment, with constant assessment to distinguish genuine inability from malingering ([10:03], Dobson).
  • Restoration includes group work, individual assessment, and comprehensive documentation ([13:18]-[13:40]).

6. The Complexity of Siders’ Case

• Forensic Assessment Challenges:
  • The breadth of the alleged abuse over years complicates pinpointing “time of the crime,” making psychiatric evaluation more complex than usual ([13:56]–[14:49]).
• Responsibility vs. Mitigation:
  • Dr. Dobson notes that while Siders may be mentally ill or traumatized, this does not preclude legal responsibility:

    “She is a victim who also had selfish decisions that superseded the care of her children.” ([15:24], Dobson)

  • Opportunities may have existed for Siders to seek help despite coercion ([16:05], Dobson).

7. Social & Systemic Factors, and Ripple Effects

• Socioeconomic Contrasts:
  • Emerson contrasts the Siders case with the Lindsay Clancy case to highlight disparities in resources but similar failures of support for mothers ([21:25]).
• Public Discourse & Systemic Change:
  • The episode discusses how media attention and audience advocacy can affect legal precedents and raise awareness of maternal mental health ([20:48]; [22:13]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Mock Trials for Competency:

  “We set up a whole trial room. I acted as a DA or a prosecutor or a judge... and we try and see if you can get through putting your plea forward.”
  — Dr. Leslie Dobson ([01:36])

• Dr. Dobson on Siders’ Agency:

  “There were opportunities where she could have helped them or taken them to places that were cleaner and safer… Even if she was under coercive control... there were still periods where she had an adult mind.”
  — Dr. Leslie Dobson ([16:05])

• On Legal vs. Human Judgment:

  “It’s not a question of humanity at this point… It’s a question of law. And if you look at it legally, she can be identified as a perpetrator.”
  — Dr. Leslie Dobson ([17:42])

• Competency Does Not Mean Sanity:

  “You can still have severe mental illness or personality disorders, but you can… know what a judge and a jury is. So you’re going to trial, right?”
  — Ann Emerson ([12:47])

• Systems Failing Families:

  “We’re dealing with systems where the systems are failing people at many, many levels. From the highest level all the way down to neighbors and family.”
  — Dr. Leslie Dobson ([22:13])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:00–00:33 — Introduction to the Siders case; attorney’s description of Elizabeth Siders
• 01:36–01:51 — Dr. Dobson explains the mock trial process for competency exams
• 03:32 — Frequency and rationale for competency evaluations in jails
• 04:07–04:38 — Siders’ background: early pregnancies, forced marriage, family context
• 06:14 — Dr. Dobson on psychological impact of “lifetime pregnancy”
• 06:42–07:37 — Distinction between incompetence and insanity pleas
• 09:30–09:43 — Typical duration and outcomes of competency restoration
• 13:18–13:40 — Day-to-day practicalities of competency programs
• 14:49–15:24 — Complexity and scale of evaluation in the Siders case
• 16:05 — Discussion of Siders’ “selfish decisions” despite her victimization
• 20:48–22:13 — Broader impacts of high-profile cases like Clancy and Siders

---

Conclusion

This episode combines deep compassion with rigorous legal and psychiatric insight, dissecting how competency—and ultimately responsibility—is determined in tragic, high-stakes cases like Elizabeth Siders’. Dr. Leslie Dobson’s first-hand account of the restoration process exposes a rarely seen part of the justice system, while also raising critical questions about the intersection of mental health, trauma, social context, and legal accountability. The episode’s broader discussion draws connections to parallel cases, explores the limits of the justice system, and advocates for ongoing reform and awareness.

For further updates on the Siders case and more in-depth true crime reporting, subscribe to Criminally Obsessed.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, everyone. It's Ann Emerson and this is Criminally Obsessed. If you've been watching the Lindsay Clancy trial, you need to hear this. Elizabeth Siders is now going to be evaluated. She's the Ohio mom whose 16 children were found in deplorable conditions. Listen to how her own attorney describes meeting her after she was arrested on 16 child endangerment charges. I really didn't know what I was

[B]

walking into when I walked in there. I met a woman who was timid

[A]

and who was exhausted. It looked like she had been crying quite a bit. She looked distraught. Get this. According to the latest order from the judge, Elizabeth Siders has to be found competent enough to stand trial in order for her to enter a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. This is a woman now accused along with her husband and her in laws in one of the most closely watched child welfare cases in Ohio. Really? We were caught off guard and surprised to find that 16 kids were in this home after serving a warrant on another incident. But there's a question that has to be answered before this case can move forward. Is Elizabeth Siders competent to stand trial? And oh my gosh, I thought I knew what a competency exam was. I had no idea because this isn't just someone sitting across from Elizabeth asking her a bunch of questions. I had to call in forensic psychologist Dr. Leslie Dobson. She has done a ton of competency exams. So listen to this.

[B]

You're actually in a mock trial. So we set up a whole trial room. I acted as a DA or a prosecutor or a judge. The patients who were doing well would act in certain roles and we try and see if you can get through putting your plea forward. You understand?

[A]

Wait, a mock trial so somebody can be found incompetent and then go through competency restoration to see if they can actually stand trial. So what are they actually looking for in Elizabeth Siders and what happens if she can't pass the test? Dr. Leslie Dobson takes us into a part of the criminal justice system that most of us never see. Be sure to like subscribe and turn on your notifications. We're going to be updating this case and all of the other cases that you're observing. Obsessed with. This one has a lot going on. Now let's get into it. Doctor Leslie Dobson, thank you so much for joining us. Forensic psychologist is exactly what the doctor ordered right now. Dr. Leslie, you know, we have been following the ciders case for a couple of months now, looking at. Looking at what we know. But right now we know Elizabeth Seiders is going to be getting a competency exam. They've gotten ahead and approved it. And Dr. Leslie, just tell me a little bit, because you have done your fair share of comp competency exams, haven't you?

[B]

Yes. From within the state hospital system and then outside. And then when I was working in Washington, D.C. i would go down into the jails and do evaluations. So it can be for a variety of reasons. Right.

[A]

And so, Dr. Leslie, you have worked in prison, in the prison system. And how often are we asking for things like a competency exam?

[B]

You know, I'd say at least, you know, a quarter of the arrests that came into, for example, LA County Jail ended up their lawyers ended up requesting a competency evaluation. And oftentimes it was because they couldn't talk to their client. The. The lawyer was like, I don't know if they even understand me. I don't know if they're on drugs or they're mentally ill. I don't know what' going on. And sometimes it was a delay tactic or some type of tactic, but oftentimes they wanted second eyes on the client so that the client didn't put in a plea that they had no idea or that they didn't understand.

[A]

Okay, so in Elizabeth Siders, you know, this young woman who has basically been pregnant since, you know, she was, I think, 13 years old, but at 15, she gets married off to a man named Gary Seiders Jr. Who we're learning about this family. And of course, when they found her children, they were in terrible condition, according to the investigators, to the prosecutors that are going to be involved in this case. When you look at that mug shot, what did you think?

[B]

I. I think my initial reaction was to judge her and because she looks like a drug addict, that was my genuine initial reaction. And as I've learned more, I do think drugs were likely involved, But I question the level of captivity. I question it as not so much physical captivity, but coercive control and psychological captivity because of being in this relationship, or if you can call it a relationship, this abusive family for so long. But I do also, you know, I want to see the victim for the victim. But I question at some point, you know, when is she also going to be held responsible? And so that's why this competency evaluation is so important. The other three have already gone to competency training, I guess you could say, or they're having their evaluations. Finally, Elizabeth's lawyer puts hers through, and then we will be able to see if she's competent. We get to start trial. And if she's not, they're going to make her competent, and then she's going to put forward the insanity plea.

[A]

Well, and Leslie, what about, you know, we're starting to see questions about. And maybe it's because of. It's in the Zeitgeist with Lindsay Clancy, but we're seeing, you know, this is a woman who's been pregnant her entire, you know, teens through 20s through 30s, like, you know, for, for, for a long, long period of her life. Postpartum depression could be involved with this postpartum in general, we could be looking at those issues all over again. Right.

[B]

And I don't know. I'm sure there are maybe there's a few people in this world who study a lifetime of pregnancy, but hormonally and psychologically, what is this woman's makeup when all she's done is she's been pregnant and then she's given birth and then gotten pregnant again? It's. It's unimaginable. I can't even imagine. I would, I would question if there are people who actually study this.

[A]

Well, and, and just to be clear for everyone, the difference between being incompetent and being insane. Those two. Just, just to help our view understand where we're going with this, with Elizabeth, you have to be found competent in order to be found insane.

[B]

Correct. Competency is the earliest thing your lawyer is saying. Hey, whoa, whoa. I need to make sure that my client knows what a plea bargain is like. Does my client know what a jury is? Does my client know what a judge does? Does my client know what a lawyer does? Competency is that very initial piece. If you're found competent, then you get to put forward a plea and rationally, logically have a conversation with your lawy about the truth and what, what you want to put forward with. And it does sound like insanity is what they're all going to put forward. So in a sense, they're all saying, yeah, we did that. We were there, but we're all insane.

[A]

If you were going into, you know, to see Elizabeth and to try and talk to her right now, what would that look like?

[B]

If she's sitting in a jail cell, it doesn't sound like she's dangerous. So she's probably not cuffed, and she's probably in a small pod amongst other women. Communicate. And so you would go in and depending on the setting, you would either have a wall between you or a window, or you just go straight in and she would be cuffed to the table and you have to slowly understand their mindset. So can they rationally understand what is going on? Like, really, do you know what's happening right now? Let's just get down to the nitty gritty. And then can you factually understand. Do you know what a judge is? Do you know what the jury does? Can you communicate in a meaningful way with your lawy lawyer? So you'd sit down and ask those questions. And my guess is that she's not competent because the lawyer pushed so hard and waited to put this in. So then what would happen is she'd likely be moved to a state hospital facility where they have these tracks for competency. And you go all the way through these courses where you're actually in a mock trial. So we set up a whole trial room. I acted as a DA or a prosecutor or a judge. You, the patients who were doing well would act in certain roles. And we try and see if you can get through putting your plea forward. And you understand.

[A]

Okay. I had no idea. I had no idea you did all that.

[B]

It's. I mean, the patients had fun with it. A lot of the incompetent patients, when they were struggling, you know, we could really identify where they were struggling and how sometimes it really came down to performance anxiety. Other times they were seriously mentally ill. But they have specific programs where that's all you talk about, that's all you do, that's all you work on until you're competent to go back to jail and go to trial.

[A]

Okay, so how long does all of this take?

[B]

A long time sometimes. You know, in California, if you. Sometimes you can tap out at three years.

[A]

I thought you're going to say like three months.

[B]

No. Sometimes you may never be held accountable and you can be set free because you will never gain competency. It is a bit of a get out of jail free card when you are so mentally ill and unable to participate in your own criminal defense.

[A]

I mean, you're not getting your kids back. It's not like you're going back to your life. Right.

[B]

Some do, but some are so intellectually unable to live their life that they can't have their children back. But I have seen people get out and stay out. And that's the sad part of, of our system. But people try to fake it all the time. And that's what we have to do, is we have to weed them out with significant testing. I mean, when you're in a state facility 24 7, you're being watched. You know, everyone, we're rounding on you. And Then we're talking about you, and there's layers of all of this. And then, because it is legal there, everybody wants to be careful. Right. So we're documenting everything, and we do not allow the liars and the malingerers to stay in the state hospitals. So everything is about finding them and pushing them out.

[A]

If you're competent, then they're like, okay, we're going to trial. Like, we're going to. We're going back into court. We've done what we need to do, and we felt that you are competent to stand trial.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Okay. And that's when they would be able to kind of move forward with the legal system, as it were.

[B]

That's when I would assume they'll put forward a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. And I don't entirely understand that because it would be for all 16 counts that. So that's her entire life. So she was. They're saying she was insane, didn't know that her actions had consequences for her entire life.

[A]

You would almost expect them to be saying, well, then she was held hostage. Right? Like she was literally there against her will her entire life. Right.

[B]

But then why wouldn't they go for not guilty?

[A]

How often do these defendants usually restore their competency? Is it. Is it pretty common for defendants to get up to speed and be like, okay, I'm competent now?

[B]

I would say almost always for. For intellectual disabilities. Those are different lanes, and that might be a different type of housing that the individual goes to if they can't become competent.

[A]

And another really interesting thing, because I covered the. The One of the trials of. Of Lori Valo Daybell, the. The mom who took the lives of her two children who she had thought were zombies, and it took two years for them to get her competent, but she got competent. Even if you thought her kids were zombies, they were able to say, you're standing trial in 2023.

[B]

Right. Because it's not about if you're mentally sane or not. It's about the factual and rational understanding of the court and the process. So, you know, if she. Does she think the judge is a zombie? Okay, cool, Lori. The judge is a zombie. But do you know what he does? Okay. He determines your sentencing.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

He listens to the jury. Okay. Then you're competent.

[A]

So you don't have to be rational or you can still have severe mental illness or personality disorders, but you can. But you can. You know what a judge and a jury is. So you're going to trial, right?

[B]

You can. You have to be rational, but you can still be mentally ill and rational. It just doesn't matter if it's related to something other than trial and putting your plea forward.

[A]

How long do you spend with them? Like, how many, like, months?

[B]

Oh, yeah. I mean, wow. When I was physically in the state hospital, my office was a converted jail cell or a patient bedroom. And so, you know, got up, we'd have breakfast, and we'd start to do competency work and group work, a lot of group work. But we're a team in there trying to get people to get competent when it comes to that particular program.

[A]

If you are the one going in to see Elizabeth and you've been. You've been getting her ready for trial and now found her competent in order to do this insanity plea, what's your role as a forensic psychologist? Like, how do you approach this?

[B]

So you can work for the state or the government, or you can work independently, but you go in and basically the competency team would be giving you all of the documentation that they've been putting together making this person competent. And then you're going to get everything humanly possible. I want records from when you're 2 years old. I want to know what your first boyfriend said to you the first time you had sex with her. We kind of clearly know with ciders, but I want to know everything. I want to interview anyone who might give me any insight into the frame of mind, your mindset at the time of the crime. And that's why the ciders case is so interesting to me, because what is the time of the crime? What's the crime? We have years and years of child endangerment. So it's going to be a very complex assessment.

[A]

Well, and don't you feel like that that's sort of what we're looking at, too? And we're seeing it over and over again. Like, Dr. Leslie, like with the Lindsay Clancy trial. Sorry, it's top of mind with what's been going on. But, you know, you. You saw it with that as well. As far as mentally ill versus criminally responsible. Like, you know, can you be mentally ill and criminally responsible? Or can or is. Is. Is that what this is? Versus criminally responsible? Am I right? Like Elizabeth Siders, is she. She can be mentally ill, but she can still be criminally responsible for what happened?

[B]

Yes. And in my opinion, I think she will be criminally responsible because there are so many moments where she was out and about, where there were so many years that went by where she likely could have gotten help, a victim, and at the Same time, she was a perpetrator preventing help for the children with them having cell phones and social medias. And, you know, we have barely any information on this case. But what I'm seeing already shows me that she is a victim who also had selfish decisions that superseded the care of her children.

[A]

And when you say self decisions, how do you term that? Like, how do you define that?

[B]

Well, I think there were opportunities where she could have helped them or taken them to places that were cleaner and safer. They would go to the grocery store. She could have asked for help there. And I know even if she was under coercive control or Stockholm syndrome, there were still periods where she had an adult mind. And we'll find that out in the competency evaluation. You know, how much of a mind does she have? But there's also a lot of chatter about substance use and drug use, and the markings on her body were due to her own use of substances. We need to find out if she was initiating that or if. If somebody else was or if it was even happening. So there's so much more information we need to find out about this case.

[A]

One other thing I want to ask about Elizabeth. The. Her ability to understand is also something that's very concerning. We're talking about a woman who at 13, is pregnant. According to prosecutors, she's married at. Married off at 15 by parents who sign off on the marriage license. Off she go, goes. And she's not an adult to be making these decisions either. I mean, that has got to play a role that as a child she was brought into this situation, impregnated somehow, and then like, led into this, like, unbelievable. Like, just staying pregnant the whole time. The whole time.

[B]

The whole time.

[A]

How can we say to a woman like that, like that this is your fault?

[B]

Exactly. And I think it's not a question of humanity at this point, because you and I would be there to help. Right. It's a question of law. And if you look at it legally, if you look at it legally, she can be identified as a perpetrator.

[A]

Okay. And so that's really what we're dealing with, is a victim can also be a perpetrator.

[B]

Yes. And I think that's the struggle when it comes to social media. And why these things get so crazy on social media is because you have to slow down and use discernment and wait for information. And that might take years, but people would rather run with theories that Patrick Clancy killed his children. I mean, it's. We. As the person actually doing the job, I can't run with theories like that. I need evidence, information. I need to watch behavioral patterns over time. I need to gain so much information, and I need to see patterns of growth as well. And, you know, recidivism rates. I have to do psychological assessments. You have to stabilize on medications with psychiatry. And imagine the physical health workup of all four of those adults. They were probably in such bad health. I mean, they had to let the grandfather out because he's probably going to croak any day.

[A]

I spoke to a clerk who had some interaction with her. She kept her head down. She had this, you know, she had Gary Setters Jr. Sort of leading her around by her elbow in the store. She was very quiet. They tried to give her hygiene products because it was so bad. They literally had to Lysol the store down when they left, according to this clerk. It was just. There were so many issues. But like the hygiene products, they kept on saying, well, that didn't seem like they use them. When you hear that, I. I want to understand. Like, those are the kind of things that. Do you need to know, as a forensic psychologist, as you're trying to understand her state of mind?

[B]

Yes, and I want to know. Her brother said that they were in communication briefly before this was discovered. I'd like to know what they were talking about. What's her reading level? Is she able to converse? At what level? Does she have emotional. Does she have an emotional iq? Does she have an intellectual iq? You know, there's so much testing that needs to be done, and then the collateral as well, because she's been alive all these years, what's been going on, and what has everyone else around her noticed?

[A]

That's a really good question. And how many cases they've seen like this, the Lindsay Clancy case, How will that roll down into a case like Elizabeth Siders? Do you see an impact from a. From a trial like Clancy and postpartum psychosis? Like the worst of the worst, Like, I. I hear voices, and I do this horrib with my children. Do you see that rolling into cases like this, where we're looking at a different mom who's had different issues with her multiple children?

[B]

I do. And I do. Because of the audience, because of your audience, because of my audience, because the judge in the Clancy case had a conviction overturned the other day. So a woman now gets to actually plead not guilty by reason of insanity because we pushed so hard. So if we keep pushing, we can keep building awareness and attention towards women's mental health and women's maternal mental health. And right now the world is watching and this is when we make change and we don't shut up even if people are calling us traumatic.

[A]

Yeah, I think you're right because I mean if you look at it like it's is extraordinary timing. As you know, we heard about the Ciders case. We get into the Clancy trial and we're dealing with very different situations. We have socio economic situations that are on opposite ends of the scale here. Highly educated family with the Clancy's very, very low level of care and poverty and, and economic and socioeconomic hell for the, for the Siders family. Yet we're still dealing with a story of moms that just aren't getting the support they need and things aren't going well.

[B]

Yeah, we're dealing with systems where the systems are failing people at many, many levels. From the highest level all the way down to neighbors and family. And it is really sad. But as we make noise and we hold people accountable and I believe Lindsey, you will not be found criminally responsible. We change things. We change the way people look at these cases, the way they approach them. We make change.

[A]

Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you're thinking about this case. You know, I had never heard of the whole competency restoration process as she explained it to us. Dr. Leslie is amazing and I'm so grateful that she could come on and talk to us about this today. Let me know what you're thinking and do you see any comparisons right now in what's going on with the Lindsey Clancy case? It's very interesting law. Be sure to like subscribe and turn on your notifications. You know we're going to be updating the Ciders case as we get more information as well as all of the cases that you're obsessed with.