Marion Watch Investigates: How a Community Activist’s Struggle Connects to a Pattern of Alleged Harassment, Child Endangerment, and Systemic Conflicts in Marion County
In a concerning Marion County legal dispute, the welfare of a minor child appears to be significantly compromised, prompting serious questions regarding the efficacy of child protection services. A protection order, initiated not by the child’s mother but by Skylar Haberman’s neighbor and an associate of his ex-partner, is alleged by Haberman to be a tool of harassment.
This order has resulted in numerous calls (approximately 80) to dispatch official police resources at his residence—totaling many dozens over approximately the past year—highlighting perceived inaction and troubling incidents, alongside documented failures in legal representation. Furthermore, Mr. Haberman states that a primary justification provided for denying him custody of his daughter was the consistent volume of police calls originating from his neighbor. A fact that Skylar believes was distorted purposely.
The issue of police resource allocation extends beyond Mr. Haberman’s direct case, drawing parallels to other community concerns. Local activist Naomi Craig recently addressed a city council meeting on 5/27/25, detailing a perplexing encounter where Marion Police Department officers attempted to contact her academically successful, and community involved son concerning an unsubstantiated claim of “stepping onto a neighbor’s driveway.” Ms. Craig vehemently challenged this, noting that police themselves confirmed “nothing happened” and that her son, a straight-A student, had not, in fact, trespassed.
This event gains additional context from Mr. Haberman’s decision to employ a third party for lawn care, a task he typically performs himself.
He states this measure was taken specifically to mitigate ongoing conflict and what he describes as police harassment. Mr. Haberman believes this police harassment stems from a “conflict of interest and ethical concern within the legal system” that Marion Watch plans to report on in the near future. The individual hired was, coincidentally, those involved assert that Skylar explicitly cautioned against accessing the neighbor’s property.
Ms. Craig publicly challenged the police’s “warning” as an act of harassment and retaliation, highlighting the stark contrast with MPD’s alleged failure to act on her own prior, more serious reports of threats, including those to commit murder and arson at her home. Her testimony, which touched on these disparities and her relentless pursuit to address blight in Marion, was controversially interrupted by Council President pro tem Marion Law Director Mr. Russell, who accused her of harassment and intimidation. A pattern Marion Watch has observed as a normal response to Ms. Craig’s Marion Council presence. This incident, previously discussed by Ms. Craig in a public video, underscores a pattern of alleged disproportionate police response and official attempts to silence community concerns.
The ongoing judicial proceedings in Haberman v. Smith present allegations of the mother prioritizing her new relationship over her co-parenting responsibilities, thereby exposing the child to firearms and a highly concerning environment marked by illicit drug activity, vicious dogs, and eventually resulted in harm to this child multiple times. This includes an incident where the mother’s boyfriend’s brother experienced a fentanyl overdose at the residence. Despite the individual reportedly living in the home, local officials reportedly dismissed the overdose as irrelevant, citing its occurrence outside the dwelling, with the individual discovered in the front yard. Mr. Haberman vehemently disputes this assertion, contending that the mother could not have been unaware of the situation given their relationship. Moreover, Mr. Haberman claims that officials accused him of harassment when he sought judicial intervention regarding an earlier dog bite incident sustained by the child. These serious allegations, coupled with claims of physical altercations, threats, and a perceived lack of diligent advocacy from the father’s legal counsel—who is accused of disregarding video evidence, failing to subpoena crucial witnesses and records, and suppressing pertinent medical documentation—collectively paint a troubling narrative of a child potentially enduring a hazardous environment with apparently insufficient intervention from protective services or adequate legal representation. Further exacerbating these issues are alleged conflicts of interest within the case, reportedly present for quite some time and increasing drastically since January 2025 and remaining unaddressed, including the presiding judge having previously served as the opposing party’s attorney, and alleged coercive tactics employed against the father regarding criminal charges and excessive legal fees. While the Haberman v. Smith case remains incomplete, our ongoing investigation has already compiled several gigabytes of data, which we are meticulously analyzing for the initial release of this investigative series.
Marion Watch’s ongoing research reveals striking commonalities across the cases we are investigating, extending beyond the individual details of the Haberman v. Smith proceedings. A recurring theme involves significant conflicts of interest and ethical concerns within the legal system that appear to impede justice and compromise the safety of vulnerable individuals. Specifically, the alleged prior representation of Skylar Haberman by Attorney Jack VanBibber—an individual Marion Watch has recently reported on for other ethical concerns—again raises profound questions about impartiality and the integrity of judicial processes. Furthermore, the fact that the presiding judge previously served as an attorney for Skylar Haberman’s ex-partner in this very matter constitutes a clear conflict of interest under the Ohio Rules of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rule 2.11 (Disqualification). This rule mandates that a judge disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including if they “served as a lawyer in the matter.” Such a scenario creates an undeniable appearance of impropriety, as the judge would have gained confidential information and previously advocated for one side, fundamentally undermining the public’s trust in the fairness and neutrality of the court. These patterns suggest a systemic issue where intertwined professional relationships and unaddressed ethical lapses may be contributing to disproportionate outcomes, a lack of accountability, and what appears to be the weaponization of official resources, such as police calls, against individuals seeking protection or fair resolution within the legal framework.
Responses