Warner – A couple who lived with five children among animal waste, rotting food and loose insulation have been convicted of 10 counts of child endangerment.

Henniker District Court Judge Brackett Scheffy said Wendy and Byron Ruff’s Warner home was “deplorable.”

“It is not a difficult matter to keep a home free of non-domesticated and non-house-trained animals,” Scheffy wrote in his ruling Monday. “It does not require even an ordinary level of intelligence to know that the waste products of a variety of animals, many of which were in poor and diseased condition, are dangerous to the well-being of children and adults.

“The display of pornography on the walls of a home in which young children, one of them a pre-teen girl, reside, shows a callousness to their welfare that fails to meet any rational standard of behavior,” Scheffy added.

The Ruffs are scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday. They face up to a year in jail or a $2,000 fine for each count.

The couple plan to appeal. They were charged in August after the town’s health inspector condemned their home, finding it full of garbage and animal waste, with no food for the children. The state veterinarian seized 37 animals, including pigs, chickens, goats, geese, rabbits, dogs and cats from the property.

The family moved back in after they and volunteers cleaned up and made some repairs. The Ruffs were charged with child endangerment shortly after their return to the house.

The Ruffs argued that photographs and other evidence gathered during the inspection shouldn’t be used against them because the police officers who accompanied the health inspector did not have a criminal search warrant.

Lawyers said most child endangerment cases brought in New Hampshire arise in situations where children suffer serious injury or death. But Scheffy found that the law does not require that a child be injured or dead before the law applies.

“It is enough to prove the acts were knowing and purposeful,” he wrote. “The defendants do not have to provide much in the nature of amenities to their home but they do need to provide rudimentary cleanliness.”

The children have stayed with their parents throughout. Scheffy wrote that while the court proceedings have dragged on, the children’s needs have not been addressed.

“There is a stunning irony in the fact that thousands of dollars have been spent on the . . . animals that were taken from the home and carted off to food, safety and clean living conditions while the Ruffs’ children were permitted to return to that same home and on the same day,” he wrote.

It is rare to see a criminal conviction when the state has not won custody from the parents, said Jack Lightfoot of Children and Family Services, a nonprofit group that provides assistance to abused and neglected children.

Ellen Schemitz, the director of the Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire, a child welfare advocacy group, said the case highlights problems with the civil child protection law.

“This case, and the way it was handled, highlights the difficulties that the state faces in protecting kids,” she said, “and suggests that perhaps we need to re-examine whether our statutes are sufficient for protecting children, when it’s easier to protect animals than kids.”