With regard to the second claim, as the trial court also held, the responsibility for supervising the children, as well as the responsibility for the fact that the kindergarten staff employs a sufficient amount of personnel for the proper and appropriate care of the kindergarten children, rests with the appellant as the kindergarten principal and its owner. Therefore, she cannot build on the claim that she did not put N.S. in a swing. Moreover, even if N.S. had not fallen out of the swing in the circumstances described, there would still have been room to convict her of the offense in question, since it was not required that the risk of leaving the child unattended would also be realized in practice.
- Things are different with regard to indictment 13. In this charge, the trial court ruled that the appellant placed the toddler A.A. on the said swing device, and left the room without an adult person there. During the time that A.A. was left alone, another child entered the room several times and bullied him (for example, touched his face, pinched him, or covered his face with a blanket) and even bit him on the back and caused him a bruise. All this, when the appellant enters and exits the room several times without doing anything. The appellant is of the opinion that she should be acquitted of this charge, inter alia, because the children were not left without proper supervision, and given that the said harassment could have occurred even if they had been in the kindergarten center.
After watching the videos, I do not believe that the children were indeed left without proper supervision. As can be seen in the videos, the appellant enters and leaves the room a large number of times during the period of time that this indictment deals with. Although the appellant was arranging the kindergarten at that time, and moving mattresses from one place to another, it was clear that she was in the vicinity and that the children were not alone. Indeed - in the videos you can see the child bullying A.A.A.; And it would have been better if the appellant had intervened and distanced him from A.A. However, bullying that is not dealt with effectively and quickly (even if it is a small child harassing a toddler), in and of itself, does not indicate that the children were left without proper supervision. Failure to take appropriate care as aforesaid does not consolidate, in part or with, the offense of leaving a child without proper supervision. In our case, as stated, the appellant leaves the nursery room and enters it on an ongoing basis, while arranging the mattresses, when on the face of it she is listening to what is happening there (even if, as stated, she does not approach A.A. and the other child). In addition, another aide also enters the room (e.g., at 12:36:05); And at a certain point, when we see in the video that A.A. starts crying (at 12:44:10), A few seconds The assistant comes to him and treats him (12:44:29). This quick reaction could not have occurred in a situation where the kindergarten staff were not at all nearby, while maintaining some eye contact with what was happening. Another determination, which considers this case to constitute a criminal offense, will result in the imposition of an unreasonable burden on kindergartens, and will lead to a demand that a child cannot be left without close and complete supervision. It should also be emphasized that the aforesaid statements do not indicate that this is proper behavior, and certainly not optimal. In my opinion, too, it would have been better for the appellant to approach A.A. and make sure that the other child was not harassing him – especially in view of the significant age difference between them and in view of the repeated harassment throughout the videos. The kindergarten teacher must have failed in her job. Still, in the circumstances of the case, it is not a case of leaving a child unsupervised. Therefore, the appellant should be acquitted of her conviction in Charge 13.