In re Z.S.

[Cite as In re Z.S., 2010-Ohio-1929.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
DEFIANCE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (1), CASE NO. 4-09-20
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (2), CASE NO. 4-09-21
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (3), CASE NO. 4-09-22
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (4), CASE NO. 4-09-23
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (5), CASE NO. 4-09-24
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
IN THE MATTER OF:
Z.S. (6), CASE NO. 4-09-25
NEGLECTED/DEPENDENT CHILD,
[DAVID SIEFKER,
FATHER-APPELLANT], OPINION
[FAITH SIEFKER,
MOTHER-APPELLANT].
-2-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court Nos. 28729, 28730, 28731, 28732, 28733, 28734
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 3, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Terice A. Warncke for Appellants
Russell R. Herman and Morris J. Murray for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Father-appellant, David Siefker, and Mother-appellant, Faith
Siefker, appeal the July 13, 2009 judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Juvenile
Division, of Defiance County, Ohio, granting temporary custody of their six
children, Z.S.1, Z.S.2, Z.S.3, Z.S.4, Z.S.5, and Z.S.6, to the Defiance County
Department of Job & Family Services (“DJFS”) following an adjudication that all
six children were neglected and dependent.
{¶2} On October 27, 2007, DJFS received a call regarding concerns for
the safety of the Siefker children. According to this caller, Mrs. Siefker was
-3-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
hearing voices telling her to harm her children. The caller also indicated that the
children were not allowed to leave the home for any extended period of time, were
being left in high chairs for long periods of time, and were being home schooled
through only the use of a Bible. As a result, DJFS sent Rob Elston, a case
investigator, to the Siefker home to investigate this complaint.
{¶3} Upon arriving at approximately 11:00 a.m., Elston was greeted at the
door by Mrs. Siefker. At that time, all of the Siefker children, except for the
oldest, Z.S.1 (born December 4, 1999), were seated in high chairs. Mrs. Siefker
informed Elston that the children were seated in their high chairs before Mr.
Siefker left for work at 7:00 a.m. and remained in those chairs throughout the
morning, with the exception of bathroom breaks or diaper changes. Elston learned
that Z.S.1 suffers from autism, Z.S.2 (born March 2, 2001) suffers from a more
severe form of autism, and Z.S.3 (born January 5, 2003) suffers from autism and is
developmentally disabled due to a condition called hydrocephalus. As for the
other three children, Z.S.4 and Z.S.5 (twins, born September 21, 2004) and Z.S.6
(born January 4, 2006) do not suffer from any mental or physical ailments.
{¶4} Mrs. Siefker admitted to Elston that shortly after the twins were born
in 2004, she began hearing voices, sought treatment for this, and was diagnosed as
bi-polar. However, she stated that she was no longer on medication for her bi-
polar disorder because she had prayed to God, who healed her, and that she no
-4-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
longer heard voices. Mrs. Siefker also informed Elston that she did not take her
children into the community that often but that they would go into the backyard
when it was warm outside. She allowed Elston to look around her home and
informed them that the entire family slept in one bedroom because Z.S.2 and Z.S.3
had trouble sleeping throughout the night, which was alleviated by the family
sleeping together.
{¶5} Elston returned to the Siefker home on October 30, 2007, after
receiving a second complaint about Mrs. Siefker hearing voices and wanting to
harm the children. This time, Elston and another caseworker, Amy Linebrink,
went to the home, and Elston spoke with Mrs. Siefker while Linebrink spoke with
Virginia Flores, a woman hired by the Siefkers to assist with the children and
perform other household duties. After leaving the home, Elston returned to DJFS
and spoke with his supervisor. The two decided that a safety plan needed to be
devised, which included a mental health evaluation of Mrs. Siefker.
{¶6} Elston returned to the home later that evening when Mr. Siefker was
also home. After discussing the matter with the Siefkers, they agreed to a
voluntary case plan, whereby the children would stay with Mrs. Siefker’s family
until Mrs. Siefker could be given a mental health evaluation to determine whether
the children were in danger of physical harm from her. Mrs. Siefker also agreed to
follow any recommendations made by the evaluator. Elston was at the home for
-5-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
approximately four and a half hours during which time the children, with the
exception of Z.S.1, remained in their high chairs except for when it was each
respective child’s turn to bathe, use the bathroom, or have a diaper changed.
{¶7} For the next few days, the children stayed with Mrs. Siefker’s family
while she was attempting to have a mental health evaluation. This evaluation was
performed by Dr. Melchor Mercado. Based on his observations and discussion
with Mrs. Siefker, Dr. Mercado concluded that Mrs. Siefker was not experiencing
any kind of psychosis and was not a threat to her children’s physical well-being.
However, Dr. Mercado did diagnose her as suffering from Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder (“OCD”) and recommended that she seek counseling. The children were
returned to the Siefkers on November 2, 2007.
{¶8} On November 6, 2007, DJFS filed complaints for each child in the
juvenile court, alleging that all six children were neglected and/or dependent and
requesting that the children be placed in the protective supervision of DJFS. On
November 21, 2007, the matter came on for hearing, and the Siefkers requested
counsel, which was granted. At that time, the children were appointed a guardian
ad litem (“GAL”) and the Siefkers were appointed counsel.
{¶9} DJFS filed amended complaints in these cases on April 21, 2008.
These amended complaints more specifically delineated the allegations of neglect
and dependency and removed the term “psychotic” in describing Mrs. Siefker’s
-6-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
mental condition, which was a term used in the original complaints. The
adjudicatory hearing was held on April 24, 2008, and June 23, 2008. During this
hearing, the State presented the testimony of thirteen witnesses, including Dr.
Mercado, case workers, and service providers. At the hearing, DJFS presented
evidence that some of the children were being secured in their chairs through the
use of hard, plastic zip ties. The Siefkers presented only one witness, Faith
Siefker. After the conclusion of the hearing, the parties submitted proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{¶10} On September 2, 2008, the trial court found “that the State has
proven, to a clear and convincing level of evidence that these children are
neglected.” The court further found “that neglect is due to the mother’s mental
problems, and the father’s lack of participation in the raising of these children.” In
addition, the court held that these “six children, but particularly the three oldest
children, * * * because of their disabilities, lack adequate parental care by reason
of the mental condition of the children’s mother, which mental condition results in
a situation where the child’s condition or environment is such as to warrant the
State and the interest of the children in assuming the children’s guardianship.”
The court then found the children to also be dependent.
{¶11} By way of temporary orders, the court granted DJFS temporary
supervision of the children but allowed them to remain in their parents’ home.
-7-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
However, the court ordered that the school-age children be enrolled in school, that
the children not be withdrawn from school without the consent of the court, that
the parents not unduly attempt to interfere with the school’s methods and
provisions of education of the children, that the children with special needs receive
physical therapy at Defiance Regional Medical Center without interference by the
parents as to the methods used by any licensed physical, speech, or other therapists
until such time as the therapists deem therapy is no longer necessary, and that the
use of the high chairs be limited to no more than sixty minutes in the morning and
two later periods in the day exceeding no more than thirty minutes in duration
each period and that the securing or cable tying of the straps on these chairs was
not to be performed. The court also ordered that the parents undergo a complete
psychiatric evaluation. After receiving a motion filed by the Siefkers, the trial
court amended its temporary orders to permit the three older children to receive
therapy through the Defiance City Schools and to allow the Siefkers to undergo
their psychological evaluations after January 1, 2009.
{¶12} The psychological evaluations were performed by Dr. Wayne
Graves, a clinical and forensic psychologist, on five different occasions in January
and February of 2009. However, the report was not completed by Dr. Graves until
April of 2009, largely due to the failure of the Siefkers to return their completed
questionnaires to Dr. Graves for a significant amount of time.
-8-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶13} On March 16, 2009, DJFS filed motions to show cause in the
respective cases as to why the Siefkers should not be held in contempt for
violating the court’s temporary orders of September 2, 2008. In these motions,
DJFS alleged that Mrs. Siefker withdrew her three oldest children from school on
March 10, 2009, and informed her caseworker that she would not allow her
children to return to school. These motions were scheduled to be heard on April 2,
2009. On that date, the Siefkers’ attorney requested that he be allowed to
withdraw as counsel of record because of a potential conflict of interest between
Mr. and Mrs. Siefkers’ respective interests. The court granted this request and
appointed new and separate attorneys to the Siefkers. The motions to show cause
were then re-set for hearing on the same day as the dispositional hearing in these
cases.
{¶14} The contempt/dispositional hearings for these cases were held on
June 18 and 19, 2009. At that time, DJFS presented the testimony of five
witnesses and both Mr. and Mrs. Siefker testified on their own behalves. After
hearing the evidence, the court informed the parties that it would render its
decision as to disposition on June 29, 2009, at 4:00 p.m., and that all parties
needed to be present that day. A written notice of this date and the scheduled time
was also sent to the parties. However, the Siefkers did not appear as scheduled,
-9-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
and bench warrants were issued. The hearing was rescheduled to the following
day, and the Siefkers did appear.
{¶15} At that time, the court found both Mr. and Mrs. Siefker in contempt
of court. The court then held that the children would be placed in the protective
supervision of DJFS and that the case plan submitted by DJFS in regards to the
children would be adopted by the court.
{¶16} The court found that the children could remain in their home but that
(1) the three oldest children would attend a public or parochial school, where
specialized education is available to meet their specialized needs, including a
program of physical, occupational, and speech therapy; (2) the school district shall
not allow the parents to unduly interfere in the methods or course of study used by
the district; (3) that upon the three younger children attaining the age of six (the
age at which the mandatory school laws begin), they be educated but that the
Siefkers could home-school these children if they followed Ohio law, which
requires them to choose an education curriculum and have it approved in advance
of the first day of school by the school superintendent and to then teach that
approved curriculum to the three younger children; (4) that the three younger
children be tested each May based on the approved curriculum by the district and
that as long as they score sixty-seven percent or higher they may continue to be
taught at home; however, if they failed to attain this score or higher, they would
-10-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
have to attend public school the succeeding years; (5) that the children’s family
doctor would not be changed without notice to DJFS and the signing of
appropriate medical releases; (6) that the children not be truant; and (7) that the
children be ready for school when the bus arrives.
{¶17} After advising the parents of this disposition, the court informed the
parents that the children had a right to develop to their maximum potential and to a
useful education as it relates to the world in which they will have to live. The
court also informed the parents that there were no restrictions on what they could
teach their children at home. However, the court stated that it wanted to ensure
that its orders were followed and then asked Mrs. Siefker if she would comply
with the orders. When she indicated that she would not, the court vacated its
previously ordered disposition and awarded temporary custody of all six children
to DJFS.
{¶18} Counsel for Mr. Siefker then requested that the court make inquiry
of his client as to whether he would comply with the court’s order. The court
apologized for failing to do so and asked Mr. Siefker if he would follow the
previously stated orders of the court. Mr. Siefker replied, “We had stated that we
would unify in our defense.” The court again granted temporary custody to DJFS
but determined that the children would not be removed from the home until
August 1, 2009, and that it would allow the parents to change their minds
-11-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
regarding following the court’s orders to avoid having the children removed from
their home. The Siefkers did not change their minds about whether they would
follow the court’s orders, and DJFS gained temporary custody of the children.
{¶19} This appeal followed, and the Siefkers now assert two assignments
of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANTS’ CHILDREN TO
BE DEPENDENT AGAINST BOTH THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE & THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE CHILDREN BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO
PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
A PARENT HAD A MENTAL CONDITION THAT CAUSED
THE SIX (6) CHILDREN TO LACK ADEQUATE PARENTAL
CARE OR THAT THEIR ENVIRONMENT OR CONDITIONS
WARRANTED THE STATE TO ASSUME GUARDIANSHIP.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
BY ITS OWN JUDGMENT ENTRY DATED SEPTEMBER 2,
2008, THE JUVENILE COURT ERRONEOUSLY FOUND
APPELLANTS’ CHILDREN TO BE DEPENDENT
CHILDREN BECAUSE IT MISAPPLIED THE LAW TO THE
FACTS IN THIS CASE AND APPLIED INCORRECT LAW IN
PART TO ITS FINDING OF DEPENDENCY & THUS
VIOLATED APPELLANTS’ RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF
RELIGION & TO DIRECT THE NURTURING &
EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN UNDER THE OHIO
AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶20} The issues presented by both of these assignments of error are
intertwined. As such, we elect to address the two assignments of error together.
-12-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶21} The Siefkers assert that the trial court erred in finding that their six
children were dependent because DJFS failed to demonstrate this allegation to a
clear and convincing standard of proof. Specifically, the Siefkers maintain that the
evidence did not establish that Mrs. Siefker had a current mental condition that
resulted in the children lacking adequate parental care or that the children’s
condition or environment was such as to warrant the state to assume their
guardianship. Further, the Siefkers contend that the trial court erred by
misapplying the law regarding a finding of neglect to support its finding of
dependency. Lastly, the Siefkers assert that the trial court erred in its adjudication
and disposition of the cases by awarding temporary custody of the children to
DJFS, particularly in regards to Mr. Siefker, whose actions, they assert, were not
given due consideration. In support of these assertions, the Siefkers maintain that
the trial court impermissibly based its decisions on its dislike/discomfort with their
religious beliefs and their choosing to raise and educate their children in
accordance with those beliefs. Thus, they contend that the trial court
impermissibly infringed upon their freedom to exercise their religion and to raise
their children in accordance with those religious beliefs.
{¶22} Our review of this matter begins by noting that “[i]t is well
recognized that the right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In
re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680, citing In re Murray
-13-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
(1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169. Thus, “a parent’s right to the
custody of his or her child has been deemed ‘paramount’” when the parent is a
suitable person. Id. Because a parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the
custody of his or her child, this important legal right is “protected by law and,
thus, comes within the purview of a ‘substantial right[.]’” In re Murray at 157,
556 N.E.2d 1169. Based upon these principles, the Ohio Supreme Court has
determined that a parent “must be afforded every procedural and substantive
protection the law allows.” In re Hayes at 48, 679 N.E.2d 680. Further, we are
guided by R.C. 2151.01(A), which sets out the purposes of R.C. Chapter 2151
relevant here:
To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical
development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised
Code, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating
the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the
child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety[.]
See In re Riddle, 79 Ohio St.3d 259, 262, 680 N.E.2d 1227, 1997-Ohio-391.
Thus, it is within these constructs that we now examine the findings and
determinations made in the lower court.
{¶23} A finding of neglect or dependency must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.35. “Clear and convincing evidence is that
measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a
firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established.” Cross v.
-14-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E.2d 118. Further, “[i]t is
intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such
certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not
mean clear and unequivocal.” Id., citing Merrick v. Ditzler (1915), 91 Ohio St.
256, 110 N.E. 493. In Cross, the Ohio Supreme Court further held:
Where the degree of proof required to sustain an issue must be
clear and convincing, a reviewing court will examine the record
to determine whether the trier of facts had sufficient evidence
before it to satisfy the requisite degree of proof. * * * The degree
of proof required is determined by the impression which the
testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the
character of the testimony itself. Credibility, intelligence,
freedom from bias or prejudice, opportunity to be informed, the
disposition to tell the truth or otherwise, and the probability or
improbability of the statements made, are all tests of testimonial
value. Where the evidence is in conflict, the trier of facts may
determine what should be accepted as the truth and what should
be rejected as false.
Cross, 161 Ohio St. at 477-478, 120 N.E.2d 118 (internal citations omitted). Once
the clear and convincing standard has been met to the satisfaction of the trial court,
“the reviewing court must examine the record and determine if the trier of fact had
sufficient evidence before it to satisfy this burden of proof.” In re Adoption of
Holcomb (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 368, 481 N.E.2d 613, citing Cross, supra.
“The determination of the [trial] court should not be overturned unless it is
unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Adoption of Holcomb,
supra.
-15-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶24} The sections of the Revised Code under which DJFS brought its
dependency actions, R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), state that a “dependent child”
means any child:
(B) Who lacks adequate parental care by reason of the mental
or physical condition of the child’s parents, guardian, or
custodian; [or]
(C) Whose condition or environment is such as to warrant the
state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child’s
guardianship[.]
In contrast, the sections of the Revised Code under which DJFS brought its neglect
actions, R.C. 2151.03(A)(2), (3), and (4), state that a “neglected child” means any
child:
(2) Who lacks adequate parental care because of the faults or
habits of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian;
(3) Whose parents, guardian, or custodian neglects the child or
refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, education,
medical or surgical care or treatment, or other care necessary
for the child’s health, morals, or well being;
(4) Whose parents, guardian, or custodian neglects the child or
refuses to provide the special care made necessary by the child’s
mental condition[.]
{¶25} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a finding of neglect based
upon “R.C. 2151.03(A)(2) requires some showing that parents, a guardian, or a
custodian is at fault before a finding of a lack of proper (or adequate) care can be
made.” In re Riddle, 79 Ohio St.3d at 262, 680 N.E.2d 1227. However, the focus
-16-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
of the dependency allegation is on the child and the child’s condition, not on the
faults of the parents. Id. Nevertheless, the conduct of a parent is relevant insofar
as it forms a part of the children’s environment. In re Burrell (1979), 58 Ohio
St.2d 37, 39, 388 N.E.2d 738; In re Alexander C., 164 Ohio App.3d 540, 843
N.E.2d 211, 2005-Ohio-6134, at ¶ 51. “‘The parent’s conduct is significant if it is
demonstrated to have an adverse impact on the child sufficient to warrant state
intervention.’” In re Alexander C., supra, quoting In re Ohm, 4th Dist. No. 05CA1,
2005-Ohio-3500, at ¶ 21.
{¶26} When a child is receiving proper care from her parents, then the
child is not a dependent child. In re Riddle, supra; see, also, In re Utz, 3rd Dist.
No. 3-2000-06, 2000-Ohio-1710. However, while the child’s present “condition
or environment” is the focus of a dependency determination, “‘the law does not
require the court to experiment with the child’s welfare to see if * * * [the child]
will suffer great detriment or harm.’” In re Burchfield (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d
148, 156, 555 N.E.2d 325, quoting In re Bishop (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 123, 126,
521 N.E.2d 838.
{¶27} In the present case, the testimony revealed that at the time of the
adjudicatory hearing on the complaints in these cases, the youngest five children
were seated in high chairs, often with restraints, for the majority of their waking
hours every day, which amounted to approximately eight to ten hours. Often the
-17-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
children were seated in these chairs for three to four hours at a time except for
bathroom breaks or diaper changes or to perform their assigned task at meal times.
For instance, Z.S.2 assisted Mrs. Siefker in pouring the orange juice for the others
at breakfast but then was returned to her seat.
{¶28} When the on-going case worker, Scott Allomong made an
unannounced visit to the Siefker home one morning, he found the same five
children in their high chairs, each restrained in their chairs with harnesses. In
addition, Z.S.2’s arms were held down by an additional restraint and the twins,
Z.S.4 and Z.S.5, had hard, plastic zip ties placed through the buckle of their
harnesses. Mrs. Siefker informed Allomong that she placed the zip ties on the
twins so they could not climb out of their chairs as they had learned to do. She
also told Allomong that she kept the children in the chairs because Z.S.2 and Z.S.3
would run all over the place if she did not restrain them. Further, Z.S.2’s and
Z.S.3’s chairs were bolted to a wooden frame to keep them from tipping due to the
fact that these children sometimes rocked themselves violently.
{¶29} When Allomong returned later that same evening, the children were
once again in their high chairs. However, Z.S.2 no longer had her arms restrained,
and one of the twins was asleep in his chair with a blanket over his head. Mrs.
Siefker never explained why the three younger children, who had no mental
-18-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
deficiencies, were subjected to the same amount of high chair seating/restraint as
the two special needs children.
{¶30} Virginia Flores, the woman hired by the Siefkers to help in the
home, testified that she began working for the family in December of 2005, when
Mrs. Siefker was eight months pregnant with Z.S.6. Initially, she worked from
2:45 p.m. until 7:30 p.m., but at the time of the hearing in April of 2008, she was
working in the home from 9:00 a.m. until 2:45-3:00 p.m. Flores testified that the
children were placed in their chairs shortly after each awoke in the morning for
approximately four hours for breakfast and placed back in the chairs for three to
four hours for dinner.
{¶31} She also testified that she used to wear sweatpants to work but that
approximately three weeks before the adjudicatory hearing commenced, Mrs.
Siefker had required her to wear a dress with long sleeves and with a hem that
went below her knees. Flores further testified that Mr. Siefker used to have video
games and a television in the garage that he would use but that those were now
gone as were any of the children’s toys that Mrs. Siefker determined were not
realistic. For instance, Mrs. Siefker disposed of a toy fire truck that had a smiley
face on it because that is not how a real fire truck looks. Also, for example, Flores
was told by Mrs. Siefker to dispose of any flash cards for the children that did not
-19-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
realistically depict the objects that they represented, such as a drawing of a robin
that was purple with stripes because that is not how a real robin looks.
{¶32} Flores further stated that the children had not left the home for
approximately six months except to go to a doctor’s appointment, but that the
children were allowed to play in the backyard during the warmer months. During
the morning when the children were in their high chairs, Flores and Mrs. Siefker
engaged in various household chores, including feeding the children breakfast, and
Mrs. Siefker also gave them a Biblical lesson. The use of high chairs for extended
periods of time enabled Mrs. Siefker to adhere to her daily routine.
{¶33} Additionally, the clocks in the Siefker home do not reflect the
Coordinated Universal Time based upon the use of atomic clocks, which is the
standard used throughout the world. Rather, Mrs. Siefker utilizes her own version
of time, which consists of twelve hours that she asserts are the hours designated by
God, and teaches this time to the children. The Siefkers also use and teach to the
children the Hebrew calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar and refer to the
days of the week as the first day, second day, etc., rather than Sunday, Monday,
Tuesday, etc.
{¶34} The only toys in the home are building blocks and Tupperware
containers, and the only books available to the children are the original King
James versions of the Bible and notebooks wherein Mrs. Siefker has re-written the
-20-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
books of the Bible. The home is devoid of any outside stimuli, and the children
have no interaction with others with the exception of a handful of times when
some neighborhood children were allowed to play with the Siefker children, the
occasions where Flores brought her children to the home, and when additional
care providers would enter the home. The testimony also revealed that the
highlight of the children’s week was when the garbage men came to take the
family’s trash and the Schwann’s man delivered food.
{¶35} Various education and therapy providers have been utilized to help
educate and provide therapy to the three oldest children, most of which Mrs.
Siefker insisted occur at the family’s home. However, Mrs. Siefker would not
allow them to begin until whatever routine in which she was engaged was
completed, often delaying the start time by thirty minutes to an hour. For instance,
if she was cleaning the kitchen and the children were done with their snack, she
would insist upon completing her task before taking any of the children out of
their chairs and allowing them to begin their lessons and/or therapy. Mrs. Siefker
also censored all materials and activities that these providers attempted to use with
the children. For instance, the therapist attempted to encourage the children by
telling them that they did a good job, but this was seen as prideful rather than
meek, as God requires according to Mrs. Siefker, and the therapist was not
-21-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
permitted by Mrs. Siefker to say those things to the children, despite the fact that
the therapist viewed this as positive reinforcement.
{¶36} Furthermore, with so many children in the home, the providers had a
difficult time getting the children to focus. Therefore, both the education and
therapy providers felt that they achieved everything they could with the children in
the home but that the children needed to continue their education and therapy
outside of the home where the providers could have access to more and varying
materials and maintain an environment more conducive to productivity. However,
Mrs. Siefker did not allow this because she did not believe the children were
ready, despite the opinions of the trained providers, but she could not articulate
when she thought they would be ready. Another suggestion was also made to the
Siefkers that the three younger children be placed in day care a few days a week to
allow Mrs. Siefker some time to concentrate on the older children’s educational
and therapeutic needs but Mrs. Siefker did not feel comfortable with having these
children leave the home either.
{¶37} Mrs. Siefker’s mother, Wendy Draime, testified that when the
children stayed with her while Mrs. Siefker was being evaluated, they were all
able to sleep without any problems and she had no problems with their behavior
even though she did not use any type of high chair and/or restraints on them. She
further testified that her daughter did not allow the children to use their
-22-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
imagination, such as pretending to be firemen. Mrs. Siefker’s stated reason for
that was because it was against God’s will. She and her mother argued about this
a few weeks before the adjudicatory hearing, and her mother told her she needed
to get professional help, prompting Mrs. Siefker to order Draime to leave her
house. Draime testified that Mrs. Siefker was becoming more radical in her
beliefs, causing Draime to suspect that Mrs. Siefker was pregnant. Draime
testified that she had this suspicion because her daughter was always more erratic
in her belief system when pregnant. This suspicion was confirmed at the
adjudicatory hearing when Draime learned that Mrs. Siefker was pregnant.1
{¶38} Draime also testified that her daughter has had mental health
problems for years and she has tried to encourage her to seek professional help.
She further stated that Mr. Siefker has complained to her that his wife will not
listen to him and that she is out of control, but when she asked him if he thought
Mrs. Siefker was too disturbed to raise the children, he said that his wife was fine.
{¶39} Draime further stated that the fire truck with the smiley face that was
thrown out by Mrs. Siefker was a toy she bought for the children because Mrs.
Siefker expressly requested it, including showing Draime a picture of it in a
magazine, but that the children told her their mother threw it away because it was
1
The filings indicate that this pregnancy did not result in a live birth. However, Mrs. Siefker was also
pregnant at the dispositional hearing a number of months later, and the filings indicate that she gave birth to
this child, who now resides with Mr. Siefker and his parents and is not one of the children involved in the
instant appeal.
-23-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
evil. Draime also testified that she had Z.S.2 for one summer when Mrs. Siefker
was pregnant with the twins and that Z.S.2 improved in her speaking, eye contact,
and expressiveness but that she has worsened since that summer. She further
stated that her daughter cannot do everything herself but when help comes, Mrs.
Siefker does not let it come in the way it needs to come and the children are
learning nothing. In addition, Draime testified that the need for routine was for
Mrs. Siefker’s benefit, not the children’s, and that Mrs. Siefker would have an
anxiety attack if she did not complete her routine. Further, she believed that her
daughter’s concerns were not religious issues but mental issues, particularly the
need for her children to depend on her and her alone and the need for control. She
also testified that the children were not allowed to make any choices but were told
what to do, when to do it, and where to do it by Mrs. Siefker.
{¶40} Throughout her testimony, Draime testified that her daughter was
loving and kind and that she loved her children. However, she repeatedly stated
that her daughter needed professional help for the mental health issues she has had
for years. While she stated that she respected a number of things that Mrs. Siefker
had a religious viewpoint on and did not go against her daughter’s wishes about
what the children are exposed to, she also consistently and repeatedly stated that a
lot of Mrs. Siefker’s behaviors and attitudes towards things were based on her
-24-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
need to maintain order and to keep her routine for her own sake, not those of the
children.
{¶41} Mrs. Siefker testified on her own behalf. She stated that she is a
Christian but not any specific denomination. However, she has not attended a
church since 2004, and neither have her children because no church seemed to
hold her same beliefs and views and often did things of which she disapproved.
She also testified that the pastor of one of the last churches she attended had
“leavened” her home. Specifically, in 2007, he brought her Bibles (the new King
James version), Christmas candy for her children (the Siefkers do not celebrate
Christmas), and audio cassettes of the Bible being read (she does not believe in
people acting as if they are Christ), knowing she did not agree with these things.
Thus, she became suspicious of his motives and concluded that he was providing
information to DJFS, which she noted occurred on the eve of Halloween, an evil
holiday, through the items he brought to her home.
{¶42} Mrs. Siefker stated that Dr. Gupta was her treating psychiatrist from
1997-2003, that he diagnosed her as suffering from bi-polar disorder, and that he
put her on medication for this, which she took for five years. She testified that she
stopped taking the medicine after praying to God for healing, consulting with Dr.
Gupta, and changing her diet, excluding all refined sugars and refined grains. She
further testified that she had not heard voices for a number of years. However, she
-25-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
also admitted that she had never told Dr. Gupta that she had heard voices telling
her to put her children in the oven. Dr. Mercado also did not recall Mrs. Siefker
informing him that she had heard voices telling her to harm her children, but Mrs.
Siefker testified that she had told him this information. As for Dr. Mercado’s
recommendation that she seek additional counseling, Mrs. Siefker went to see Dr.
David Deal one time but did not return because he had an item on his table that
she believed to be associated with witchcraft. She also admitted that she had not
sought counseling from someone else, including Dr. Gupta or Dr. Bonnie
Kaufmann, a psychologist who had counseled her and referred her to Dr. Gupta in
1997, despite having agreed to follow any recommendations of Dr. Mercado and
agreeing with his diagnosis of OCD and depression.
{¶43} Mrs. Siefker, who has a bachelor’s degree in English secondary
education, testified that she home-schools her children using the English and
Spanish version of the King James Bible and flash cards using words found in the
Bible. She also testified to utilizing different methods to teach her children with
disabilities but that she had never submitted them to the school superintendent for
approval. At one time, she enrolled the children in public school at her mother’s
urging but withdrew them when she saw how the school was decorated and her
husband informed her that her mother was not going to tell them how to raise their
children.
-26-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶44} She further testified that she asked the in-home providers to wear
certain clothing and censored what and how they taught and worked with her
children because she wanted to control what happened in her home. However,
Mrs. Siefker also stated that she had enrolled the three oldest children in school for
the fall after praying about it. She testified that she understood that things would
be different in school and she would not expect to have the same restrictions on
teachers and therapists at school as at home. She also admitted that she did not
take the children anywhere other than to a doctor’s appointment or to play in their
backyard so that they would not be exposed to anything, such as a picture, cartoon,
or manner of dress, of which she did not approve.
{¶45} Nearly everything that Mrs. Siefker did by way of educating and
censoring all exposure her children had to the world, according to her, was based
on her religious beliefs. However, while she made references to certain passages
in the Bible, she did not identify any specific tenets of her faith and was unable to
identify anyone or any other group that believed as she did or held beliefs similar
to hers. Further, she never explained by way of her religious beliefs or otherwise
why all the children had to be seated in high chairs for long periods of time, why
all the children had to sleep together with their parents, or why she did not adjust
her routine to accommodate her children’s education and therapy.
-27-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶46} Based upon all of this testimony, the trial court found that Mrs.
Siefker had a history of mental problems, including being diagnosed with major
depressive disorder and bi-polar disorder, that she had not followed through with
medication and/or counseling for these disorders, and that confining the children
to their high chairs made Mrs. Siefker’s obsessive compulsion to maintain this
routine easier. Further, the court found that the therapy had been continually
interrupted by Mrs. Siefker to the point of being rendered useless and that she no
longer took her children to therapy at the hospital because they might see
something with which she disagreed. Thus, the court found that all the children
were, essentially, caged and that they had no socialization except with their
immediate family. The court also found that the older children had been seriously
neglected from an educational standpoint because no one was allowed to begin the
children’s lesson until her routine was complete and she censored everything they
did and saw, essentially rendering these services useless as well. The court further
found that harm had occurred to the children due to the “limited therapeutic,
educational, and socialization opportunities as well as the opportunity to simply be
children moving about.”
{¶47} Although Mr. Siefker did not testify, Mrs. Siefker testified that
various things she did were after speaking to her husband or how “they” felt about
things. The testimony, including Mrs. Siefker’s, revealed that Mr. Siefker was
-28-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
employed, taking him out of the home several hours of the day, but often provided
her little assistance in taking care of the six children when he was home and that
he would leave the home or go to the garage when he was not working. This
testimony was supported by other witnesses as well, including Draime who
testified that Mrs. Siefker complained to her about Mr. Siefker’s lack of assistance
and support. Therefore, the trial court found that Mr. Siefker was withdrawn from
the family and unable to “get through the solid wall of [Mrs. Siefker’s] mental
condition.”
{¶48} As a result, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that all
six children were neglected and that Mrs. Siefker’s mental condition did not allow
her to recognize the harm she is doing to her children. Specifically, the court
found that Mrs. Siefker believed that she was doing what was right because she
justified everything upon “an incomprehensible religious doctrine, arrived at
individually, not related to any recognized tenet or denomination, and zealously
embraced to the point of summarily excluding all other reason.” The court further
found that the children were being stunted in their development to the point of
serious harm. The court then found that the neglect was due to Mrs. Siefker’s
mental problems and Mr. Siefker’s lack of participation in the raising of the
children.
-29-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶49} However, the court did not end its determination there. The court
further explained that the children were also dependent because they lacked
adequate parental care by reason of the mental condition of their mother, which
condition resulted in a situation where the children’s “condition or environment is
such as to warrant the State and the interest of the children in assuming the
children’s guardianship.”
{¶50} Having reviewed the evidence, as detailed above, we cannot find
that the trial court erred in finding that the children were neglected and
dependent.2 There was clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Siefker’s faults
and/or habits in refusing to allow her children to be exposed to anything in the
world in which they will have to live that she did not approve of is harmful to their
educational, developmental, and emotional well being. Further, the testimony
revealed that Mr. Siefker was either incapable or unwilling to ensure that his
children were not harmed by his wife’s need for routine and control of her and
their children’s surroundings. Further, the evidence was sufficient to warrant a
firm belief or conviction on the part of the trial court to find that Mrs. Siefker’s
mental condition prevented her from realizing the harm she was doing to her
2
The trial court’s entries specifically state that the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
children are neglected but does not put the word neglected in all capital letters unlike its finding that the
children are dependent, which was capitalized. Thus, the parties seem to believe that these cases only
involved findings of dependency. However, our review of this entry reveals that the trial court found the
children to be dependent, as defined in R.C. 2151.04(B) and (C), AND neglected, as defined in R.C.
2151.03(A)(2) and (3).
-30-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
children such as to warrant the State to assume their guardianship to ensure that
they received adequate parental care.
{¶51} As for the disposition of these cases, “the trial court must evaluate
all of the dispositional alternatives and decide which one best serves the interests
of the child.” In re Hauenstein, 3rd Dist. Nos. 5-03-38, 5-03-39, 2004-Ohio-2915,
at ¶ 20, citing In Re Holtgreven (June 23, 1995), 3rd Dist. No. 5-95-7, unreported,
1995 WL 368841; In Re Pieper Children (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 318, 322, 619
N.E.2d 1059. One option available to the court is the placement of the child in the
temporary custody of a public children services agency. R.C. 2151.353(A)(2).
Prior to awarding temporary custody to DJFS, “the trial court must find that
[DJFS] used reasonable efforts to avoid the removal of the children from the
home.” In re Hauenstein, supra, citing R.C. 2515.353(H). However, “[a]
reviewing court will not reverse the trial court’s decision at this dispositional stage
as being against the manifest weight of the evidence if it is supported by
competent and credible evidence.” In re Holtgreven, supra, citing C.E. Morris Co.
v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578, syllabus.
Further, a court exercising jurisdiction over the custody and welfare of children
has a great deal of discretion. Trickey v. Trickey (1952), 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106
N.E.2d 772.
-31-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶52} At the time of the disposition in this case, the three oldest children
were enrolled in Defiance City Schools. The school arranged for them to be in
their own classroom, specifically designed as a “self-contained autism unit,” with
teachers and aides to continuously help them. In October of 2008, Virginia Flores
was hired by the school at the request of Mrs. Siefker to also be an aide for the
children. Not only did the children receive educational services, they also
received physical, occupation, and speech therapy.
{¶53} Before the school year began, the primary teacher, Laura Smith,
went to the Siefkers’ home to discuss the education of the children. During this
meeting, Mrs. Siefker told Smith about various things to which she did not want
her children exposed, including a heart necklace that Smith was wearing on that
occasion because she did not approve of that shape. She further instructed Smith
that she preferred Smith and other women to wear a head covering and shirts that
were not revealing. Smith agreed that they would wear aprons if their necklines
became an issue for Mrs. Siefker but that they would not wear head coverings.
{¶54} Mrs. Siefker also came to the classroom when Smith was decorating
it for the start of the school year. Mrs. Siefker did not approve of some crayon
cut-outs that had smiley faces on them, so Smith removed them. She also told
Smith that the name plates she had could not be used because there was a swirl
design on the border, which Mrs. Siefker asserted was a sign of witchcraft. The
-32-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
school ordered books to use with the children that contained real life photographs
to accommodate the Siefkers’ preference that their children only be exposed to
realistic objects. The school also ordered high chairs for the children that were
specifically requested by the Siefkers. However, after a few days of using them
and being concerned that if the children rocked hard enough they might tip the
chairs over and harm themselves, Smith stopped using the chairs. She found that
the children were able to sit at their own desks during their lessons and at a table
to eat without any problems.
{¶55} In addition, Mrs. Siefker insisted on censoring everything the
children were taught. She went through all of Smith’s teaching materials, such as
note cards, flash cards, etc., and informed Smith of the ones she approved and
disapproved. She would also periodically go through these materials during the
school year, and at times, would disapprove of some item that she had previously
approved.
{¶56} Mrs. Siefker initially came with the children to school for the first
few weeks. After this time, a bus provided the Siefker children transportation to
and from school. However, the bus often had to wait anywhere from ten to forty-
five minutes for them because the Siefkers did not have them ready when the bus
arrived, which cut into both their therapy and academic times.
-33-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶57} Initially, the Siefkers permitted their children to participate in music
time, which Smith testified was particularly beneficial and enjoyable for autistic
children. During music time, they would sing songs and use different musical
instruments. At some point, Smith sent a CD of 100 songs, complete with the
lyrics, to the Siefkers for approval, but Mrs. Siefker did not approve of any of
them. For instance, one of the songs, “Old MacDonald Had a Farm,” was
disapproved because Smith could not prove to Mrs. Siefker that there ever was a
person named Old MacDonald who had a farm and where he lived. Thus, she
considered this to be untruthful, and she would not allow her children to be taught
lies. Eventually, Mrs. Siefker allowed Smith to use a few songs, such as “Head
and Shoulders, Knees and Toes,” because those were actual body parts.
{¶58} Z.S.1 was also allowed to walk to the cafeteria with a staff member
to get lunch for the class. He was able to say hello to other students in the hallway
and even had a bit of conversation with another boy about his same age. Z.S.1
enjoyed this very much and would become upset if he was not able to go to the
cafeteria for some reason. However, Mrs. Siefker stopped this activity when she
learned that a poster of “High School Musical” was hanging above the cafeteria
entrance because she felt the people in the poster were dressed inappropriately.
{¶59} In December of 2008, another child, a girl, was placed in the autism
classroom with the Siefker children. In addition, the classroom was moved from a
-34-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
space in the basement to a class upstairs. With the addition of the other child
came materials for her that were not approved by Mrs. Siefker, such as regular
children’s books and a book bag with a picture of the Disney cartoon “The Little
Mermaid.” Thus, Mrs. Siefker requested that her children not be exposed to the
new student’s things. Smith complied with this request and put the Siefker
children in a workspace away from the new student. Smith also put photographs
of the children with the words “Our Class” on the door to her classroom, but Mrs.
Siefker insisted that the photograph of the new student be removed because her
neck was exposed and she was not wearing a head covering.
{¶60} One day in February of 2009, Z.S.2 came to school with a fever.
After she vomited, Smith sent her home. Smith had sent Z.S.3 home on a previous
day for the same conditions. Mrs. Siefker informed Smith on both occasions that
the children were not contagious but that they were ill because they had been
exposed to sin. She further told Smith that if any other children became ill, it was
because they, too, had been exposed to sin. Therefore, Mrs. Siefker requested that
the children not be sent home. However, many other children at school were sick,
and it appeared to Smith that some type of stomach flu was going around the
school.
{¶61} The following day, the Siefker children were not present at school.
However, Mrs. Siefker came to the class and went through Smith’s teaching
-35-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
materials that she had previously approved. While Mrs. Siefker was at the school,
Mr. Siefker called a number of times asking his wife to come home to help take
care of the kids. He also called an additional time to ask her to come home
because he was now sick, but she did not leave.
{¶62} Instead, Mrs. Siefker continued to review the materials she had
previously approved. She made a stack of various materials of which she did not
approve, and Smith questioned her as to why these materials were no longer
acceptable. Smith also told Mrs. Siefker that she wanted to teach Z.S.1 about
literature, specifically setting, plot, and characters, and then question him about
what would happen next in the story. She asked Mrs. Siefker if she could create
stories to do this, but Mrs. Siefker said that she could not because that would be a
lie, even if the stories were made up about Smith’s own daughter, who is,
obviously, a real person. Mrs. Siefker then suggested that Smith utilize the Bible
to accomplish this because Mrs. Siefker knew the Bible was real. When Smith
informed her that she could not and would not teach the Bible in school, Mrs.
Siefker became very upset and more confrontational than Smith had ever
previously seen.
{¶63} Smith further questioned Mrs. Siefker as to why she kept changing
her mind about what was acceptable to teach and what was not and expressed that
she felt like she was constantly a step behind because she could not stay on top of
-36-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
what the rules were due to Mrs. Siefker’s constant changes. At that point, Mrs.
Siefker told Smith that she did not always know the new rules that God was going
to give her, that the rules were always changing because God is constantly giving
her new directions, and that is how it is when God establishes a new religion,
which God was doing with her. Smith testified that she then “backed off” and
ended the conversation.
{¶64} According to Smith, “[e]verything spiraled from there.” The
children’s attendance began to be sporadic, particularly Z.S.1’s. Smith testified
that after the day that the children were sent home sick, Z.S.1, who had enjoyed
school, became much more anxious around the school staff, particularly anyone
who became sick, his breathing would become heavy, he was a little clammy, and
he would pace. He would also comment to Smith that she needed to ask for
forgiveness so she would not feel sick again because her sins had made her sick.
{¶65} Mrs. Siefker also demanded that the clock hanging on the wall in the
new classroom be covered or removed. Smith testified that the clock was there
when they moved into the room but that they never used it to teach the children
time or even referenced what time it was to the children. Nevertheless, Mrs.
Siefker informed Smith’s supervisor, Laura Springer, that she was not going to
compromise and deny her God by allowing her children to attend that school
unless the clock was covered or removed. Mrs. Siefker even had discussions with
-37-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
the assistant superintendent about the clock, but ultimately the decision was made
that the clock would not be removed.
{¶66} When the children’s attendance first started to become sporadic, the
bus continued to drive to the home to pick up the children. However, Mrs. Siefker
began calling the school in the morning to inform them that the children would not
be attending. On one particular day, Mrs. Siefker called-in the children’s absence
from somewhere other than her home. Smith and Springer then called the home to
ask Mr. Siefker what was happening. He stated that he did not know his wife had
called. He then told them to send the bus because he wanted the children to go to
school. The bus was sent and the children were taken to school that day.
However, shortly after that day, the children did not return to school, and Mrs.
Siefker attempted to withdraw them. Due to the temporary orders of the court, the
school did not permit this, but the Siefkers did not return their children to school.
{¶67} Despite all these problems, Smith testified that the children learned
well during the time she had with them and enjoyed being in school until shortly
before they stopped attending. However, the restrictions placed upon her by the
Siefkers made her job of teaching more difficult. For instance, although Z.S.1
could spell and read, trying to assess his reading level and comprehension was
difficult because of the limited materials she was permitted by Mrs. Siefker to use.
Nevertheless, Smith testified that the children did well and that the school made
-38-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
many concessions for the Siefkers because the children were amazing, the staff
realized that having that many children in one home was difficult, and everyone on
staff wanted to do whatever was “needed to do for the kids’ sake.” As an example
of their progress, Smith testified that Z.S.2 became much calmer, knew what was
expected, and had fewer periods of upset. She also learned to sit and perform an
“undesired task,”3 write her first name, and work without being prompted. Z.S.3,
who was non-verbal and was not toilet trained, was taught to use objects to tell
others what he wanted and learned to use the toilet. For instance, he would grab
an empty roll of toilet paper that Smith had provided to him and take it to a staff
member in order to convey that he needed to use the restroom. He did this with
other objects as well.
{¶68} Smith further testified that she was concerned for the children,
special needs or without special needs, because of the amount of time that they
spent in the household without being around different people. This concerned her
because the children would not learn socially acceptable behavior and a lack of
exposure would be detrimental to them in the future. She also doubted that any of
the children could obtain the type of education that they needed in the home given
the number of children, the special needs of three of them, the time needed, and
the limited materials available to them.
3
Smith described an “undesired task” as one that Z.S.2 did not want to do or initiate on her own, but rather,
was a task she was instructed to do by Smith.
-39-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶69} Virginia Flores testified that she saw a change in the children at
school and saw much more progress than any she witnessed in their home. For
instance, Z.S.1 became more social and was no longer afraid to ask other people
questions. Z.S.2, who was only home-schooled for fifteen to twenty minutes a day
before being enrolled in school, was less frustrated learning at school than she had
been at home, could eat with a spoon, participated in music class, and developed
more social skills. Z.S.3 was toilet trained at school in about a month but the
Siefkers did not continue that at home. In the Siefker home, Flores noticed that
the high chairs were not used quite as often. However, she testified that over the
years Mrs. Siefker’s dress code had changed from pants being acceptable, to only
dresses being acceptable, to most recently that a female needed to have her neck
covered as well.
{¶70} She also stated that Mrs. Siefker came to her in early April of 2009,
to inform her that she was withdrawing the children from school. Flores attempted
to discourage her from doing so and gave her an example of how they were trying
to follow Mrs. Siefker’s rules, such as only teaching them in terms of real things.
The example was about whales, how big they are, their weight, etc., but Mrs.
Siefker told her that if they were not acknowledging that God made them and
thanking God for making them, this was unacceptable, and she was no longer
-40-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
going to sacrifice her faith. At this time, Mrs. Siefker also informed her that she
was twenty-two weeks pregnant.
{¶71} Flores was concerned for the children because Mrs. Siefker told her
that she was at peace with DJFS removing the children from her custody because
God would protect them. She also testified that Mrs. Siefker’s religious-based
rules had changed several times throughout the years. Also, she found that Mr.
Siefker made more attempts to abide by the court’s temporary orders than Mrs.
Siefker did, that the Siefkers disagreed about sending the children to school, that
Z.S.1 enjoyed school but wanted to please his mother, who told him that school
was not good, and that Mrs. Siefker repeatedly found something wrong with what
the school was doing, including ordering that magazines in the staff lounge be
removed, even though the children did not enter the lounge. In short, Flores
testified that Mrs. Siefker was looking for problems and that it was very difficult
to teach the children because Mrs. Siefker constantly changed her mind.
However, she noted that the children learned more in their short time in school
than what they could have accomplished at home in the same amount of time.
{¶72} Laura Springer, the Director of Student Services in Special
Education for Defiance City Schools, testified that she has worked with the
Siefkers for approximately two years, including when the children were being
taught at home and at school, and has spoken to the Siefkers many times. She
-41-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
testified that the three oldest children needed to be taught in school because the
Siefker home was always chaotic and too small for effectively teaching the
children at home. She further testified that the children needed socialization but
that Mrs. Siefker’s views were becoming more rigid and rule-based, preventing
this from happening. In addition, she stated that socialization with strictly those
who live or visit the home was not sufficient, and she feared what would happen to
the children if something happened to their parents because they would not be
prepared to live in the world.
{¶73} She also testified that bi-polar disorder does not simply go away.
However, she stated that she would not be surprised if a doctor evaluating Mrs.
Siefker stated that she did not have bi-polar disorder because Mrs. Siefker “is
extremely articulate, intelligent, and she can present * * * whoever she wants to
be.” Springer then questioned whether any such evaluator had seen Mrs. Siefker
over a period of years rather than simply on one occasion. She further testified
that based on her training and experience she has learned to recognize the signs of
mental illness, and “how the religiosity and scrupulosity is one of the favorite
things to latch on to when you want to have rules and order to follow, and then
you can defend anything, because everybody buckles if it’s in the name of religion
* * * so people tend to not get the help that they need.” Thus, she believed that
Mrs. Siefker has a religion but that it is mixed in with mental illness. She also
-42-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
testified that she knew Mr. Siefker disagreed with many of his wife’s views but
eventually decided to support her.
{¶74} Mrs. Siefker also testified. When asked about the children not being
in her care some day, such as when they are adults, she stated that she and her
husband do not think of their children leaving them, that she expects her special
needs children to be with her until she dies, and that while she teaches them life
skills, she does not teach them independence because family supersedes that and
she hopes that someone would take them in rather than sending them to a group
home. She further stated that she “just [doesn’t] think that far ahead. I just teach
them daily and love them daily.”
{¶75} Mrs. Siefker also stated that she would not teach any curriculum the
school provided, even if she were able to adapt it to include her religious beliefs,
such as teaching that whales have spouts because God gave them spouts (which is
what she believes is the true and correct way to teach). She specifically testified
that the children learn all day long because their entire day revolves around the
teaching of time (according to her clock – “what God has revealed unto [her]”),
the calendar, the colors that she asserts go with them (only the colors of the
rainbow), and the scriptures. Lastly, she admitted that she does not allow the
children out of the home or their backyard because she does not want them to see
anything that she believes is unholy, and no other children interact with hers.
-43-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶76} Mr. Siefker testified at this hearing as well. He denied being an
absent father and stated that he believed his children were being properly educated
and developing properly. He also admitted to disagreeing with his wife at times
regarding what was best for the children but that now “we have unified and we are
a family[,]” they are on the “same page,” and they are “making decisions as a
family.”
{¶77} The trial court was also provided with the psychological evaluation
performed on the Siefkers and their children (as was practicable given their ages
and intelligence levels). Dr. Wayne Graves performed all of the evaluations. He
noted Mrs. Siefker’s history of psychological counseling and treatment, including
having a nervous breakdown at age nineteen. He found that Mrs. Siefker had an
“obsessive thought style,” that the contents of her thoughts were “intensely and
obsessively biblical or faith based,” and that her ideas had a “grandiosity to them
that might be delusional.” He found her ideas to be understandable but
idiosyncratic and that she avoids much self scrutiny. Further, he stated that
“[g]iven [her] defensiveness, her profiles do not support any kind of diagnosable
psychopathology [but] [s]ome may be present if she were more open and
disclosing.” She also has “strong rigidity of thought and the intensity seen in
obsessive thinkers.” He also found that “[t]here is a part of her that believes that
she is better than others and has an air of conviction that her ideas and point of
-44-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
view are positive and correct. This amounts to some grandiosity of belief.” Dr.
Graves also stated:
There is also clear indication of poor ability to self limit with her
obsessive ideas and beliefs. The behavioral rituals that she uses
are partly based on anxiety reduction. All this is mixed with her
strong and isolated faith system that has become obsession like
and is not very open to change, in part because she must stick to
them or feel panicky and out of control; and in part because they
are supposedly from God (her biblical interpretation).
{¶78} In sum, Dr. Graves found that Mrs. Siefker has very little insight, is
closed to views other than her own, possibly limits the expression of more aberrant
ideas because she knows that they would be received with alarm or concern, has
ideas that are driven by an obsessive process, and has an orientation with some
elements of narcissism. Further, “[s]he has a focus that is more on self and her
own world than clearly on the children and their world * * *[and] lacks the ability
to have a good overview of her children in the future and how their best interest
might be served in the future.” He found that her OCD is still present “but more
folded into her faith and religious beliefs[.]” Her beliefs and ideas about physical
health and illness as it relates to evil “sound close to delusional in their intensity
and effects * * * They seem to develop more elaboration over time and are lived
out with more intensity. In that way they are likely to produce more functional
difficulty for [Mrs. Siefker’s] parenting tasks and her responsiveness to authority.”
Dr. Graves also suggested that Mrs. Siefker’s pregnancy would produce more
-45-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
pressures that would significantly affect her stability and that the home
environment was likely to deteriorate further.
{¶79} In regards to Mr. Siefker, Dr. Graves found that he was “much more
open and disclosing” than his wife, “is more prone toward being dependent in his
relationships than independent and would likely lean on someone else for
emotional support.” He also found that Mr. Siefker did not have “a lot of self
awareness or insight;” does not have “the same beliefs about fiction and reality[,]
[b]ut he lets [his wife] ‘set the pace[;]’” and “does defer to [his wife] [b]ut he
supports and has the same beliefs as her.” Mr. Siefker acknowledged that he and
his wife “‘are not good planning people. We react more to the moment.’” Dr.
Graves determined that Mr. Siefker is supportive of his wife, not very independent
of her, and would not “have the emotional strength or assertiveness to effectively
oppose [his wife] if he does not agree with her, as long as she frames her direction
as biblical.”
{¶80} Dr. Graves found that the family dynamic was high stress, with “so
much ritual and forced pattern as to inappropriately confine the children to chairs
or the table for too long (two plus hours).” Because of the time and energy needed
to handle the three special needs children, the younger three were deprived of
“much focus, attention, verbal interaction or freedom except in an indirect style.”
Dr. Graves also found that the three older children and one of the twins, who had a
-46-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
traumatic brain injury at age two according to Mrs. Siefker, needed the resources
of the public school system to receive an appropriate education and the best
services for their special needs and that early intervention was necessary to long
term functioning. He also determined that the decisions to limit the children’s
exposure to fantasy and the like would ultimately fail and that fantasy play is an
important tool in learning planning and goal setting. Dr. Graves further opined
that the special needs children “will not achieve much of their potential for growth
in this home. This environment is likely to stifle their learning.” As for the
younger, non-special needs children, Dr. Graves found that “they will have some
clear and significant reduction in the richness of their learning environment and
amount of attention that they receive * * * [which] would be improved by the
older three being in school.”
{¶81} Dr. Graves opined that Mrs. Siefker did not present a physical threat
to her children but represented “a risk to the emotional and psychological health of
their children, especially if allowed to isolate the children from peers and
community support[.]” He recommended that the Siefkers use public educational
resources with respect for the family’s beliefs but that Mrs. Siefker not be
permitted to have control over the programming or setting to the extent she was
previously allowed. He also recommended limiting the overuse of confinement
beyond 30-40 minutes and more free play when able. He also recommended
-47-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
psychotherapeutic intervention and support for the Siefkers and that the court
require Mrs. Siefker to be re-evaluated for medication management and to have
her psychiatrist apprised of the contents of his evaluation. Dr. Graves cautioned
removing the three older children from the home but recommended that they be
placed outside of the home if the Siefkers were unwilling to accept the
recommendations. As for the younger three children, he recommended monitoring
their continued placement, depending on the reaction of the parents to the removal
of the three oldest.
{¶82} In rendering its decision on the record, the trial court explained to
the Siefkers that its decision to place the children in protective supervision with
express conditions was not meant to impinge upon their faith. Rather, the court
found that this is a developmental situation wherein the children had an individual
right “to develop to their maximum potential whatever that potential may be” and
the younger children, although not of school age, “have the right to a useful
education as it relates to the world in which they will have to live.” The court
stated that it believed that its orders “will accomplish the rights for the children
with very little interference to the parents’ very personal, always changing
religious revelations.” The Siefkers then informed the court that they would not
comply with the court orders.
-48-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶83} Although the Siefkers correctly assert in their appeal that Mr. Siefker
did not specifically state that he would not follow these orders, the words he chose
to respond to the court’s inquiry (“We had stated that we would unify in our
defense”) after hearing his wife’s response merely seconds before being asked
himself clearly indicated that his answer was the same as his wife’s. In fact, Mr.
Siefker’s response occurred even after the court declared that it was vacating its
protective supervision order and granting temporary custody of all six children to
DJFS because Mrs. Siefker stated that she would not follow the court’s orders. At
no point did Mr. Siefker or counsel on his behalf express anything contrary to Mrs.
Siefker’s position, including when the court informed the Siefkers that it would
consider protective supervision if they had a “change of heart.”
{¶84} We find that the court did not err in ordering temporary custody of
Z.S.1, Z.S.2, and Z.S.3 to DJFS as such decision was supported by significant
competent and credible evidence. The court was faced with a situation where Mrs.
Siefker’s beliefs were ever changing, her rules were ever increasing, and her views
were becoming grandiose and unyielding. The school did everything within
reason, and then some, to accommodate Mrs. Siefker’s demands and, yet, this was
still not sufficient for her, resulting in her removing the children from school. She
then reverted to her isolationist ways and refused to acknowledge or even think
about her children’s futures and how they would be able to live in the world
-49-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
outside of her home and backyard. Nevertheless, the court attempted to avoid the
removal of the children from their home by initially granting protective
supervision with minimal conditions, including permitting the younger children to
be home-schooled. Only when the Siefkers proclaimed in open court that they
would not adhere to any of these conditions did the court take the next step of
removing all the children from the home.
{¶85} While much of the evidence involved the education of the school-
aged children, the other three were closely approaching school age and the
Siefkers asserted that they would also not provide these children with an education
based upon an approved curriculum. Further, the court had every reason to
believe that the Siefkers would continue isolating these children and not permit
them to be exposed to the outside world. Thus, as previously noted, the court did
not have to experiment with their welfare to see if they would suffer great
detriment or harm before placing them in the custody of DJFS as well. Therefore,
the trial court did not err in this regard either.
{¶86} Although the Siefkers assert that the trial court based its decisions
upon a disagreement with their religious beliefs, we do not find that to be
supported by the record. First, the use of the high chairs was never explained to be
based upon some sort of religious belief. Rather, it was Mrs. Siefker’s way of
maintaining her routine and keeping order throughout the day. While Mrs. Siefker
-50-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
could explain the use of the zip ties and bolting the chairs to the wooden frame for
safety purposes, she could not explain why she could not find some alternative to
such prolonged restraint or why they were necessary for all the children. Second,
the court expressly stated that this country jealously guards the right to individual
religious freedom of thought and parents have the right to direct the education and
rearing of their children, but it correctly noted that this right was not absolute. See
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526. Further, the court noted
that the neglect was due to Mrs. Siefker’s mental condition, which it found
“tenuous at best.”
{¶87} This is not simply a disagreement about religious beliefs. The court
found that these children were being retarded in their development to the point of
serious harm because they were not being given the basic education they need and
were being isolated from the world by being, essentially, locked away.
{¶88} Although we do not find that the trial court’s decision was based
upon the infringement of religion but rather was based upon the mental health
issues of Mrs. Siefker and her husband’s unwillingness to protect his children,
many of Mrs. Siefker’s justifications for her actions regarding her children were
based upon her claim of individually held religious beliefs. Therefore, we elect to
address the Siefkers’ contention that their religious rights are being infringed
upon.
-51-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶89} Throughout these proceedings, the Siefkers have likened their case
to that of the United States Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder.
Specifically, they assert that while the government has a compelling interest in
educating its citizenry, the court in this case has not utilized the least restrictive
means to advance this interest.
{¶90} In Yoder, the United States Supreme Court held that Wisconsin’s
compulsory school attendance laws, requiring children to attend formal high
school to age sixteen, violated the Amish faith’s right to free exercise of religion.
Id. In so doing, the Court noted the state’s power “to impose reasonable
regulations for the control and duration of basic education” due to its “high
responsibility for education of its citizens[.]” Id. at 213. However, the Court held
that “it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of
religious belief by its requirement, or that there is a state interest of sufficient
magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise
Clause.” Id. at 214.
{¶91} Nevertheless, the Court found that “the very concept of ordered
liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of
conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.” Id. at 215-216.
Further, the Court noted that “activities of individuals, even when religiously
-52-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their
undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare[.]” Id. at 219.
{¶92} The Court went on to find that the Amish had sufficiently
demonstrated that their deep religious convictions pervaded and determined
virtually their entire way of life and was “not merely a matter of personal
preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group,
and intimately related to daily living.” Id. at 216. Thus, the Court held that
sending Amish children to high school rather than providing a vocational
education to them in order to prepare them to live in the Amish community
“contravenes the basic religious tenets and practice of the Amish faith, both as to
the parent and the child.” Id. In fact, the Court found that the undisputed
testimony of the experts presented by the Yoders established “almost 300 years of
consistent practice, and strong evidence of a sustained faith pervading and
regulating respondents’ entire mode of life” that supported the claim that
compulsory school attendance to age sixteen “would gravely endanger if not
destroy the free exercise of [the Yoders’] religious beliefs.” Id. at 219. Thus, the
Court held that the Amish children could not be compelled to attend school
beyond the eighth grade because the government’s interest at that point was
significantly diminished and there was a less restrictive alternative, i.e. the
vocational education provided by the Amish. Id. at 236.
-53-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶93} The facts of this case are not similar to those in Yoder. The Siefkers
are not part of a community that has managed to remain in existence and steadfast
in its beliefs for over 300 years or even 3 years. The Amish did not attempt to
isolate their children from everything outside of their home. The Amish educate
their children to live in the Amish community. They do not change their beliefs
every day and, as the trial court noted, they recognize that their children can adjust
to different sets of rules in different places and they allow it to happen.
{¶94} In contrast, the Siefkers have refused to think beyond their children’s
needs today and are doing very little to prepare them for a life outside of their
parents’ home, choosing to assume that the children will live with them until they
die and making no provisions for these children once their parents are deceased.
Further, they have denied the children their own right to a basic education in many
respects as well as the right to develop to their full potential due to the Siefkers’
refusal to permit any form of education that is not entirely “from the Bible” or
“Biblically approved,” which only Mrs. Siefker has the ability to determine.
{¶95} Ohio has long followed the rationale of Yoder and other United
States Supreme Court precedent regarding balancing the government’s interest and
the individual’s right to freely exercise his religion. See e.g., State v. Whisner
(1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 181, 351 N.E.2d 750. In order to determine whether the
government has impermissibly infringed upon a person’s free exercise of religion,
-54-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
a three-part test is applied: (1) are the religious beliefs truly held, (2) has the
government infringed upon the person’s constitutional right to the free exercise of
religion, and (3) if the first and second questions are answered affirmatively, has
the state demonstrated a compelling interest for its infringement which is done in
the least restrictive means. State v. Schmidt (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 505
N.E.2d 627; Whisner, supra; see, also, State v. Bontrager (3rd Dist. 1996), 114
Ohio App.3d 367, 683 N.E.2d 126.
{¶96} For example, in regards to the first prong, the test is “whether ‘a
given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its
possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God.’ * * * [This]
satisfaction requires more than a personal or philosophical belief.” Bontrager, 114
Ohio App.3d at 371, 683 N.E.2d 126, quoting United State v. Seeger (1965), 380
U.S. 163, 166, 85 S.Ct. 850.
{¶97} The evidence in the case sub judice was abundantly clear that Mrs.
Siefker’s beliefs, known only to her, were constantly changing and often carried
the appearance of being pre-textual in order to keep the children confined to her
home and under her exclusive control. While she steadfastly professed to believe
in the existence of God and Jesus Christ and that the original King James version
of the Bible was true, the “tenets” or “rules” of her faith were always in flux,
rarely remaining the same from day-to-day. For instance, one day something was
-55-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
not sinful, the next day it was. Thus, it is difficult to determine what is truly held
because it could change the next day, the next week, or the next month.
Moreover, more than one person, including Laura Springer, Dr. Graves, and Mrs.
Siefker’s own mother, opined that these beliefs were intertwined with Mrs.
Siefker’s mental condition, particularly her OCD and anxiety issues. This renders
it nearly impossible to discern whether a particular position she has is based on her
religious beliefs, her mental condition(s), or a combination of the two. Further,
Mr. Siefker seems to follow whatever belief his wife has, rather than forming his
own belief system. Thus, determining whether he truly holds these beliefs is also
difficult, if not impossible.
{¶98} In sum, we find that the trial court properly determined in this case
that the State has a compelling interest to educate its citizenry and prepare them
for the world beyond the one crafted by their parents, who are statistically more
likely to die before their children, and that the State also has a compelling interest
in not allowing children to be imprisoned or caged in their home due to the
irrational faults, habits, or fears of their parents.
{¶99} We further conclude that the trial court in this case consistently
made every effort to respect the Siefkers’ claims of free exercise of their religion
and to balance the interests of the children and the interests of the State with those
claims only in the least restrictive means. However, the Siefkers persistently
-56-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
refused to allow any balancing. In fact, in the end, Mrs. Siefker expressly stated
that she would not use any curriculum provided by the State even if she was
permitted to adapt it to conform to her religious beliefs, and only when the
Siefkers chose to disavow the court’s orders did the court then act to remove the
children. Yet, even then, the court informed them that it would reconsider
protective supervision if they changed their minds. Accordingly, even assuming
arguendo the legitimacy of the Siefkers’ religious claims, the trial court did not
violate the Siefkers’ right to free exercise either by finding them dependent and
neglected or by granting temporary custody of the children to DJFS.
{¶100} For all of these reasons, both assignments of error are overruled,
and the judgments of the Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, of Defiance
County are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
PRESTON, J., concurs.
/jlr
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., concurs in judgment only.
{¶101} I concur with the decision of the majority, but not necessarily
with the rationale. Therefore, I concur in judgment only.
-57-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶102} After determining that all six children were neglected and
dependent, the trial court, on June 30, 2009, initially placed the children back in
their home with protective supervision granted to DJFS. Upon the parents
indicating that they would not follow the seven conditions the trial court placed
upon them in returning the children to the family home, the trial court changed
course and granted temporary custody of all six of the children to DJFS, but not
until August 1, 2009.
{¶103} I agree with the adjudication of dependency as to each of the six
children. I also agree with the disposition of temporary custody to DJFS as it
relates to the three oldest children, but note that it may have been premature as to
the three youngest children. Of the seven conditions, the first, second, sixth and
seventh pertained to the schooling for the three oldest children, all of mandatory
school age, all of whom had special needs. These four conditions needed to be
met within one month from their placement into temporary custody. The fifth
condition pertained to not changing doctors without notice and could readily have
been met by an order of protective supervision. The third and fourth conditions
pertained to the three youngest children, the five year old twins and the four year
old. These conditions related to their schooling, once they would, in the future, at
age 6, go to school; something which wasn’t going to happen for at least one to
two years from the date of the dispositional hearing.
-58-
Case No. 4-09-20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25
{¶104} However, the appellants’ assignments of error only raised issues
concerning the juvenile court’s findings of dependency on appeal. They did not
appeal the trial court’s findings of neglect, nor the disposition granting temporary
custody of the children to DJFS. Therefore, I must concur with the decision of the
majority as to the findings of dependency of all six children and the resulting
granting of temporary custody of the children to DJFS.
-59-