Incident 2 – It was determined that the appellant held the hand of one of the children, holding the hand high in a way that caused the child discomfort to stand and move forward, and aggressively the appellant led him to the other side of the room, and at a certain point swinging him with both hands in order to sit him in the stroller. It was determined that this was a violent incident that constituted an assault. The appellant should be acquitted. The appellant does indeed lead the child by pulling him by the hand, and this is done aggressively. But here, too, we are dealing with functional conduct, which does not cross the criminal threshold.
Incident 3 - The appellant approaches a toddler standing in the yard and violently grasps the upper part of his arm, and in response the child bends slightly over. Watching the videos does indeed indicate that this is a strong perception and constitutes an attack for all intents and purposes. It appears that in this case the use of force on the part of the appellant was done in order to convey an "educational message" to the toddler using physical means. Such a case, in which the use of force is not functionally required, amounts to the offense of assault. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
Incident 4 – In this incident it was determined that the appellant approached the child who was inside a plastic booth in the yard, and pulled him so that he fell to the floor and cried. She grabs him by the arm in response and takes him away. The appellant should be acquitted. A perusal of the videos does not lead to a clear conclusion that the appellant did indeed pull the minor by force and knocked him down. Afterwards, the appellant becomes angry with the child and holds him by the hand and pulls him, but her actions do not appear to constitute assault, even though they are certainly aggressive and some use of force was made.
Incident 5 – The appellant approaches the fallen toddler and cries, grabs his arm, and waves him while grabbing him with only one hand. It was determined that the said wave was violent, and that it was an assault. I don't think so. Watching the video shows that the appellant did indeed lift the toddler from his arm, but after she picked him up, she supported him with her other hand. To a certain extent, it appears that the hoisting was done not in order to hurt the child or out of a vindictive instinct, but, perhaps, because of the difficulty involved on the part of the appellant in bending down to lift the child. This does not teach that this is the right way to raise children; Far from it. However, as I have noted more than once, it is not possible to determine that her aforementioned actions give rise to criminal liability.