The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Guy Alan D’Andrea for endangering a child, affirming a lower court’s decision that sentenced him to four to six years in prison. The ruling, issued on June 15, 2026, affects D’Andrea, his family, and the child involved in the case, marking a significant moment in the legal landscape regarding child protection laws in Ohio.
The case stems from an incident involving D’Andrea and his 11-year-old foster child, identified as N.K. The court found that D’Andrea had kicked N.K. in the groin area, causing serious physical harm. This conviction was based on a jury trial that took place in late 2025, where D’Andrea was found guilty of endangering children under Ohio law. The ruling is crucial as it reinforces the legal standards surrounding child endangerment and the responsibilities of foster parents.
In November 2024, D’Andrea was indicted on two counts of endangering children, both classified as second-degree felonies. The charges were brought after it was alleged that he harmed N.K. during a period when the child was in his care. D’Andrea pleaded not guilty to the charges, leading to a jury trial in October 2025. The jury ultimately convicted him of one count of endangering children but acquitted him of the other charge.
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that included testimonies from N.K. and medical professionals. N.K. testified that D’Andrea kicked her, while a doctor provided expert testimony regarding the injuries sustained by the child. D’Andrea’s defense argued that N.K. was not a credible witness due to her history of self-harm and confusion surrounding her statements.
Judge Juergen A. Waldick, who presided over the case, led the court’s decision to affirm the trial court's judgment. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing N.K. to testify, despite D’Andrea’s claims that her testimony should have been deemed inadmissible due to her mental state and age. The court stated, “We begin with the presumption that all persons are competent to testify, even children,” emphasizing the importance of the child’s ability to communicate and understand the truth.
Additionally, the court addressed D’Andrea’s concerns regarding the recording of the trial proceedings. D’Andrea argued that the failure to properly record N.K.’s testimony violated his due process rights. However, the court found that the majority of N.K.’s testimony was adequately captured and that any minor recording issues did not materially prejudice D’Andrea’s case.
In examining the evidence presented during the trial, the court concluded that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The ruling highlighted that the jury had the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses and the evidence, ultimately siding with the prosecution's narrative. The court stated, “The jury believed N.K.’s testimony,” reinforcing the notion that juries play a vital role in determining the facts of a case.
This ruling has significant implications for child welfare cases in Ohio. It underscores the legal system's commitment to protecting children and holding accountable those who endanger their well-being. The court's affirmation of D’Andrea's conviction serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that can arise from child endangerment.
Looking ahead, D’Andrea has the option to appeal this ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, should he choose to pursue further legal avenues. The case also raises questions about the treatment of children in foster care and the legal protections available to them, which may lead to discussions about potential reforms in child welfare laws.