In re E.R.

E.R. and B.R. (defendants) were the parents of three very young children, E.R., J.R., and A.R. E.R. and B.R. kept their home in extremely unsanitary conditions. Someone filed a complaint, and workers from Child Protective Services visited E.R. and B.R.’s home on June 2, 1986. The workers found the home filthy and removed the children, E.R. and J.R. For example, every room contained a lot of dirt and garbage. Dog feces were on the floor throughout the house, along with soiled sanitary pads that the family’s three dogs had pulled from the bathroom. There were kittens, flies, and dirty dishes on the kitchen floor. Additionally, there was very little food in the house. By the time of a hearing on June 24, the home was much cleaner, and the children were returned to their parents. Legal custody remained with the Department of Social Services (the department). Unfortunately, the children had to be removed again in August 1986 due to a deterioration in the condition of the home. The parents wore the same dirty clothing for multiple days, and the children’s soiled diapers had not been changed for hours. E.R. and B.R. entered into and significantly complied with a rehabilitation agreement with the department. Over the course of a year, E.R. and B.R. received rehabilitative services, including parenting classes, assistance from a specialist in independent living, marriage counseling, and vocational-rehabilitation services. By September 1987, E.R. and B.R.’s third child, A.R., was born, and by October 1987, the cleanliness of the home had improved enough for the children E.R. and J.R. to be returned to their parents. However, the condition of the home returned to a deplorable state by December 1987. On a visit, a caseworker observed an open bottle of aspirin on the floor in the children’s bedroom, and the child E.R. was eating the aspirin. When the caseworker mentioned this to the children’s mother, she took no action. All three children were removed from the home the next day, and petitions were filed to terminate E.R.’s and B.R.’s parental rights. A juvenile court granted termination due to the parents’ neglect or refusal to provide necessary care, finding the condition of the home was a danger to the children. The parents appealed.