Todd and Julie Chrisley are firing back at recent claims that Chloe Chrisley’s biological mother, Angela Johnson, is planning to fight for custody of the 10-year-old. The legally challenged couple released a statement on Wednesday, calling an interview that Angela recently did about trying to regain custody of Chloe “unfortunate” and “misleading.”
Todd and Julie– who will be heading off to prison next month–- have had full custody of Chloe since 2016.
As The Ashley has previously reported, Angela recently revealed to TMZ that she plans to try to regain custody of Chloe and that she is not OK with the Chrisleys’ plan of allowing their daughter Savannah Chrisley to take custody of the 10-year-old while Todd and Julie are behind bars. She also claims she has been working for years to regain custody of her daughter, and that she was “pushed out” of Chloe’s life by the Chrisleys.
(While Chloe is the biological daughter of Todd’s eldest son, Kyle Chrisley, she is often referred to as Todd and Julie’s daughter and could be heard calling the two “mom and dad” on the family’s now-cancelled reality series, Chrisley Knows Best.)
❤️ my Chloe pic.twitter.com/yupTkiHwuF
— angela johnson (@angej201211) March 31, 2016
Todd and Julie responded to Angela’s statements with a statement of their own.
“Todd and Julie are saddened by the unfortunate and misleading narrative currently being portrayed in the media regarding Chloe,” the couple told People.
Furthermore, Jessica Doyle, the family attorney Todd and Julie used during Chloe’s adoption process, told the outlet Angela’s statements are “simply not legally correct or even valid.”
“I handled the formal adoption of Chloe by Todd and Julie Chrisley,” Jessica said. “Angela Johnson’s parental rights were terminated when she voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to Todd and Julie Chrisley on March 24, 2017. She has had no contact with the minor child since 2015.”
Makes me wanna cry to see how big she is getting I love my baby pic.twitter.com/Ag65IhND1k
— angela johnson (@angej201211) March 13, 2014
For those in need of a refresher on the Chloe Chrisley custody situation, Kyle lost custody of his daughter in 2013 after he was arrested and charged with assault. (He was also struggling with addiction at the time.) Angela lost her rights to Chloe after she was arrested in 2016 for Medicaid and food stamps fraud. (Last week Angela denied that committed these crimes, claiming she has proof of her innocence.)
Todd and Julie’s family attorney says the Chrisleys not only have custody of Chloe, but they are legally her parents by way of adoption.
“I have reviewed the public statements made by Angela Johnson,” she added. “They are simply not legally correct or even valid.”
Savannah is reportedly being tapped to take custody of Chloe (and Todd and Julie’s 16-year-old son, Grayson) while her parents serve their respective prison sentences. The 25-year-old confirmed on a recent episode of her Unlocked podcast that Chloe has a grasp on “all of the legal issues” the Chrisley family has going on, though she didn’t expound on whether that meant just Todd and Julie’s legal issues, or the custody situation involving her biological mother, as well.
During the pre-recorded episode, Savannah told her mom that Chloe “listens more than you think.”
“She’ll put on her headphones and act like she is listening to something when in reality, nothing’s on … so you think she’s listening [to something else],” Savannah said.
“When really she’s just listening to the conversation,” Julie added.
Savannah went on to say that Chloe has “heard about” what’s going on, “and she’s dealing with it in her own way.”
Chloe’s father Kyle has yet to comment publicly on the situation with Angela.
(Photos: USA Network; Instagram; Twitter)
6 Responses
She sounds like Janelle. You can’t sign over your rights, disappear from the child’s life, and then show up later wanting custody again while blaming other people for your absence. Children aren’t puppies.
Ok, so they adopted her. They have the same custody/guardianship status that Angela had when she committed fraud, so now that they themselves have committed fraud (on a significantly larger basis) why shouldn’t they lose that guardianship too?
Because that would set a dangerous precedent for adopted children everywhere. Thats why. Angela didn’t lose custody simply because of a fraud conviction. ? She signed her rights away when she was whacked out on drugs and now she’s changing the story. She’s trash too. She gets paid for every interview she gives. She wants money and attention. Period. I’m a foster mom. I know this system. If everyone lost their kid for criminal convictions the system would be more overburdened than it already is. I get you hate this family. I do too but don’t suggest something like this because of it. Imagine how many innocent children that would be hurting. Please, think beyond your own hatred and feelings. The world isn’t black and white. Some parents mess up but some get their life’s together afterwards. This family? Probably won’t happen. Others? I’ve seen it first hand with parents of foster kids who fought like hell to change. Should we keep their kids too? Because you’re upset with a trashy family of grifters?
I feel bad for Chloe. First both biological parents don’t have custody of her. Now the parents she has known basically her entire life are going to jail. I feel soo bad for Chloe
Even in an open adoption, visitation is at the discretion of the adoptive parents as they are the legal guardian(s).
Angela signed her rights away- she holds no legal or physical ties to this child. Had she signed a guardianship allowing Todd and Julie to care for Chloe she would have a leg to stand on.
Further, was she denied visitation or did she choose not to visit? She hasn’t seen Chloe since 2015, and signed her rights to Todd and Julie in 2017. Yes she went to jail in 2016, however prior to jail – where was she? Why did she sign away rather than guardianship? She also lives in another state (NC, Chloe is in GA).
These people are frauds and manipulators. How things went should be looked into. Incredibly cruel not to even permit the mother to visit her child.