## Facts

- Corrine Walsh was a single mother of two boys: Douglas (age 8) and Keith Zeiser (age 6).
- Walsh regularly left both children home alone while she worked.
- Each Monday through Friday, both boys were home alone for about two hours after school.
- On Wednesdays and Fridays, Keith was home alone all day until Douglas returned from school because Keith did not attend kindergarten on those days.
- During the unsupervised periods, Douglas (age 8) was expected to babysit Keith (age 6).
- Walsh had previously received government assistance that covered childcare during the prior summer, but the assistance ended when Keith began kindergarten.
- After a confidential complaint alleged the children were being left unsupervised, a social worker visited Walsh.
- The social worker testified Walsh acknowledged the boys were “latchkey children” and admitted Keith had been left home alone on the two non-kindergarten days for about five months.
- The social worker told Walsh she was eligible for publicly funded latchkey services or “protective care” paid for by Children’s Services; Walsh declined and said she wanted the children to stay at home.
- Walsh testified she believed her sons were responsible and mature, and she described the rules and instructions she gave them, including phone numbers and when to call 911.
- Walsh also testified she contacted the police department and was told there was no specific age at which leaving a child unsupervised was illegal, and that a day-care director told her the arrangement was appropriate.
- The juvenile court adjudicated Douglas and Keith as neglected children; Walsh appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support neglect.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported adjudicating Douglas (8) and Keith (6) neglected based on Walsh’s repeated decision to leave them without adult supervision for substantial periods.
2. Whether “adequate parental care” under Ohio’s neglect statutes, particularly the requirement of “shelter” to ensure health and physical safety, can include the need for adult supervision of small children.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgments finding both children neglected.
- The court held the record contained clear and convincing evidence that the children lacked adequate parental care because of Walsh’s choices about supervision.
- Although “supervision” is not expressly listed in the statutory definition of adequate parental care, the court ruled that “shelter,” read in light of its ordinary meaning as protection and safety, may cover circumstances where young children are left alone with no adult oversight.
- Given the children’s ages and the recurring nature and length of the unsupervised periods (including full days for the six-year-old), the court found the situation posed an undue risk to the children’s health and physical safety sufficient to sustain a neglect adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 2151.03(A)(2), a child is neglected if the child lacks adequate parental care due to the faults or habits of the parent.
- Under R.C. 2151.011(B)(1), “adequate parental care” means providing adequate food, clothing, and shelter to ensure the child’s health and physical safety.
- Even though the statute does not list parental supervision as a separate item, “shelter” may be interpreted as protection or a means/place of safety; that interpretation can reach situations where small children are left home alone without adult supervision.
- Neglect must be proven by clear and convincing evidence—proof that produces in the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the facts to be established.
- Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, but the state may intervene when clear and convincing evidence shows a lack of adequate parental care that endangers a child’s health or physical safety.

## Conclusion

In re Zeiser affirmed neglect findings where a mother repeatedly left her eight-year-old and six-year-old children home alone, including leaving the six-year-old alone for full days twice a week, with the eight-year-old assigned to babysit. The court held that, while “supervision” is not expressly named in the definition of adequate parental care, the statutory requirement of “shelter” aimed at ensuring health and physical safety may include the protection ordinarily provided by adult supervision for children of such young ages, and the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard.


In re Zeiser, 728 N.E.2d 10 (1999)