[Cite as In re K.D., 2014-Ohio-278.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

In re: : 

K. D., : No. 13AP-607 

 (C.P.C. No. 10JU-01-399) 

(K. D., II, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Appellant). : 

In re: : 

K. D., : No. 13AP-667 

 (C.P.C. No. 10JU-01-399) 

(N. M., : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Appellant). : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 28, 2014 

 

Peterson, Conners, Fergus & Peer LLP, and Istvan Gajary, 

for appellant K.D. 

John T. Ryerson, for appellant N.M. 

Robert J. McClaren, Franklin County Children Services, for 

appellee. 

Sharon Carney-Packard, Guardian ad Litem. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 

Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} K.D. II and N.M. are appealing from the order of the Franklin County Court 

of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, granting permanent 

custody of K.D. to appellee Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS"). 

{¶ 2} K.D. II assigns three errors for our consideration: 
No. 13AP-607 and 13AP-667 2 

I. THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF PERMANENT 

CUSTODY OF K.D. TO FRANKLIN COUNTY CHILDREN 

SERVICES IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 

CHILD AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE. 

II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

FINDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIALLY 

COMPLETE HIS CASE PLAN. 

III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

FAILING TO ALLOW APPELLANT AT LEAST TWELVE (12) 

MONTHS TO COMPLETE HIS CASE PLAN. 

{¶ 3} N.M. has assigned a single error for our review: 

The Court below erred in granting the Motion for Franklin 

County Children Services (FCCS) for Permanent Custody, as 

FCCS failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

permanent custody was in the best interest of the minor child. 

{¶ 4} K.D. came to the attention of FCCS because of a variety of medical problems 

and because of a failure to thrive. At the time, his mother was fighting drug addiction 

problems. His father was in prison as the result of a felonious assault conviction. 

{¶ 5} Because of her problems and her treatment of K.D., the mother was 

convicted of endangering children. K.D. is now five years old. He suffers from 

diastrophic dysplasia. Dysplasia is abnormal growth or development. Diastrophic 

dysplasia is an inherited dysplasia affecting bones and joints. It is commonly 

characterized by clubfoot, deformities of the fingers and cleft palate. It is sometimes 

called "diastrophic dwarfism." 

{¶ 6} FCCS has had custody of K.D. since early 2010. Both parents have had 

contact with K.D. and apparently have bonded with their child after getting their own 

legal problems addressed. Both assert in this appeal that a grant of permanent custody of 

their son to FCCS is not in K.D.'s best interest. 

{¶ 7} The trial court judge awarded permanent custody to FCCS because the 

judge felt K.D.'s full-time custody needs were "likely to exceed the father's abilities." 

Permanent Custody Judgment Entry, at 4. If the father tried and failed, another 

placement in foster care was seen as potentially devastating for K.D. 
No. 13AP-607 and 13AP-667 3 

{¶ 8} N.M. has not conducted herself in a way which indicates she could ever 

serve as a custodian for the child. While K.D. II was incarcerated, N.M.'s care seriously 

endangered K.D., even to the point of his being taken to a hospital non-responsive. Her 

inability to be reliable affected the trial court judge's ruling because the judge felt K.D. II 

would have to be solely responsible for meeting all of K.D.'s needs. 

{¶ 9} The foster mother for K.D. apparently specialized in caring for medically 

fragile children. She has special training and has cared for K.D. for over three years, with 

the daily help of a nurse for eight hours per day. 

{¶ 10} This is a case with no apparent solution. Caring for K.D. is a full-time 

occupation. The foster mother has fulfilled that role. K.D. is very bonded both to the 

foster mother and to his father. The trial judge weighed the known, the current level of 

care, against an unknown, namely the father's ability to care for such a medically fragile 

child and still maintain employment. 

{¶ 11} We cannot find the trial court erred in its determination of what is in K.D.'s 

best interests. 

{¶ 12} The assignments of error are all overruled. The judgment of the Franklin 

County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, is 

affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

KLATT and BROWN, JJ., concur.