With respect to the offenses of leaving a child unsupervised, the trial court convicted the appellant of the two charges attributed to her, since children were left without proper supervision on two different occasions in a manner that creates a danger to their safety and life – a danger that was even realized in both cases, when in one of them a baby fell from a swing; In the second, a child bullied the baby who was in the swing, and bit him. In the aforesaid rule, the court ruled that the appellant, as the kindergarten principal, is responsible for the fact that the children are under supervision at all times; He rejected her claim that she experienced difficulties during the relevant period (for example, in relation to the number of employees in the kindergarten), while ruling that if she had not been able to fulfill her duties by virtue of her role as the head kindergarten teacher, she should have avoided opening the kindergarten.
As to the offenses of abuse of a minor or a helpless person, first, it was determined that the appellant did not use a "withdrawal method" when she refrained from changing the child's clothes that were wet with urine for a few minutes (about five minutes and at most seven minutes), but she did instruct the aides not to change for the minor. The trial court ruled that this was mental and physical abuse. Second, it was held that it was not proven that the appellant used a broad "method of education" in cases of violence between kindergarten children. Third, the court ruled that the very exposure of the kindergarten children to the acts of assault in which the appellant was convicted constitutes an offense of abuse.
- Following the ruling, an offense victims' report was submitted with respect to the kindergarten children, relating to the injuries caused to them and the effects of the appellant's actions on them and their families (it should be noted that the report was submitted only in relation to some of the kindergarten children mentioned in the indictment and the judgment). In summary, and out of respect for the privacy of the individual, I will note that in relation to the children, it was stated that the appellant's actions had various effects, including a loss of trust in others, overarousal, problems relating to diaper weaning, and developmental regression. Regarding the families, it was reported that they suffer from feelings of guilt and a loss of trust, and that as a result of watching the videos, they felt anxiety, sorrow and pain.
At the same time, two reports were submitted by the Probation Service in relation to To the Appellant. In the Survey The first The Probation Service described that the appellant had presented him with recommendations from the kindergarten parents in the past, from which it appears that they were satisfied with her conduct and the education she imparted to their children. It was further noted that the appellant understands that she acted in a wrong manner; and that she described that she was preoccupied on a daily basis with her aforementioned actions, and in the circumstances that led her to behave violently. As part of the report The second It is described that the appellant sought a psychiatric diagnosis, which revealed that she was dealing with pathological grief; and that she began emotional therapy, in which she even admitted to acting violently towards the children and expressed regret for it. In view of the aforesaid, the Probation Service was of the opinion that there might be harm to the risk factors in the appellant's case and in her rehabilitation process, if she was actually sentenced to imprisonment; Accordingly, it was recommended that she be sentenced to one year of probation, imprisonment for community service, and conditional imprisonment (hereinafter: Probation Service Recommendation).
- The Scope of the Law – After the arguments of the parties regarding the sentence were heard, on March 20, 2024, the trial court's sentence was handed down. The court discussed at length the protected values that were violated as a result of the appellant's actions, including the preservation of the integrity and dignity of a person, as well as the need to protect minors and helpless persons and prevent harm to them. The court also noted the duty imposed on those responsible for minors and helpless persons to protect them and ensure their safety, health and physical and mental integrity; and that a strict punitive policy should be adopted in cases where this duty has been breached.
As to the determination of The appropriate punishment area, the trial court considered a number of different considerations, including: the appellant's multiple injuries to the kindergarten children (including long-term injuries that cannot always be foreseen) as well as to their parents; the circumstances in which the offenses were committed, including giving weight to the particularly young age of the kindergarten children; the degree of harm to protected values, which is at the high level; The public interest in protecting toddlers and helpless people from harm, especially from those who are entrusted with protecting them. Taking into account these considerations, and taking into account the prevailing sentencing policy, the court set the appropriate penalty range at between 4 and 6 years in prison.