Child Left Alone in Locked ECE Centre Van: The Details and the Questions Over Accountability
NEWS/OPINION – 7 April 2026
A young child was left alone in a locked early childhood centre van for almost 50 minutes after an excursion in 2022. The incident was only made public in 2026, raising major accountability questions.
Two certificated teachers (one full and one provisional) took 9 children on an excursion using the centre van. They returned to their centre with nine children at about 2.05pm. Two children were asleep in the van. One child woke and was taken inside. The teacher then moved the van to its usual parking space and locked it at 2.39pm. A parent arriving at 3.28pm noticed movement and a child inside the van, screaming. The teachers were reported to the NZ Teachers Council.
Tribunal Findings
The New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal found both teachers guilty of serious misconduct. The excursion occurred on 1 December 2022, and the Tribunal issued its decision on liability, penalty, and non‑publication orders on 3 September 2024. The decision was not publicly released until April 2026, when it appeared on the Teaching Council website.
Both teachers expressed remorse. They completed professional development and accepted responsibility. Each teacher was censured and fined $2,179, and must disclose the decision to every employer in a teaching role for 12 months.
Centre Sought Name Suppression
The centre involved sought name suppression. It suggested the incident was due to the actions of the two teachers, that the privacy of owners and directors should be protected, and that the centre’s reputation could be harmed in a competitive sector. It also said it had since reviewed its policies and procedures, and it believed it met all legal and regulatory requirements.
The Tribunal declined the request. It said publication could be “positive and educative” and noted the centre could “front foot” the matter by addressing it openly with its community.
Questions about accountability
The case raises broader questions about how accountability operates in early childhood education. Responsibility refers to the tasks and duties carried out by individuals, while accountability concerns who is answerable for safety outcomes.
In this instance, two teachers were disciplined. However, New Zealand has no equivalent disciplinary body for early childhood service providers, and the roles and responsibilities of the centre and the Ministry of Education fall outside the Teaching Council’s jurisdiction.
There is also a view that the Ministry of Education – and ultimately the Government – holds responsibility for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in licensed and funded early childhood services. Records of licence breaches and written directions issued to ECE services in 2022 and 2023 show that the Ministry did not take regulatory action against the centre following the incident.
There is precedent for the view that government cannot distance itself from accountability when regulatory systems fail. The Abuse in Care – Royal Commission of Inquiry highlighted this in its findings:
“49. In summary, the State registered and financially supported Marylands School. That school did not provide adequate education and safeguarding of the tamariki who were sent there – abused and neglected, and deprived of their human rights… The State also failed to ensure that there was proper accountability for the abuse and neglect inflicted by the Order.
54. The findings in this report are also a reflection of broader systemic issues that continue to persist today.
55. Aotearoa New Zealand must heed the calls for accountability and justice. Fundamental changes will be required if we are to ensure that such horrific harm and exploitation of tamariki and rangatahi does not happen again.”
The Office of Early Childhood Education has asked the Ministry of Education for comment. The ministry’s response will be added when it is received.
What happened
The Tribunal report states that the teachers returned to the centre with nine children at about 2.05pm. Two children were asleep. One child woke and was taken inside. The teacher then moved the van to its usual parking space and locked it at 2.39pm before leaving for the day. She did not check the van. A second child remained asleep in the back row.
The centre had an excursion policy. An excursion record form was available for the initial check, but no digital or paper forms were provided for the trip itself.
Roll checks were not routinely documented. The centre had not raised this issue with staff before the incident.
No staff in the centre had noticed the child was missing, until a parent arriving at 3.28pm saw movement in the van and the child inside, screaming.
Early childhood centres are legally required to have a Person Responsible for every 50 children. This person is accountable for supervising both staff and children.
The published decision of the New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal does not indicate whether a Person Responsible was on duty at the time of the incident, nor whether that individual may also have failed to meet the standards of the teaching profession.
The Tribunal’s report also did not include recommendations to the Ministry of Education on sector‑wide learning or on potential improvements to regulations or licensing criteria relating to excursions, child supervision, or roll‑checking.
FYI: What the Regulations Require
Regulation 46 of the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations requires every licensed service provider to take all reasonable steps to promote the good health and safety of children enrolled in the service.
A notable gap in the regulatory framework is that there is no explicit requirement for every child to be supervised at all times – either on the licensed premises or when off‑site but still under the responsibility of the service provider, such as when travelling in a vehicle. The regulations instead focus on the design and layout of spaces to support supervision, and on supervision during eating and when children are resting in the isolation area.
The excursions licensing criterion, HS17, requires services to have communication systems in place so staff know where children are during an excursion. However, it does not require a roll to be taken on return to the centre or for vehicles to be checked to ensure no children remain inside.
A new excursions criterion, HS113, will replace HS17 on 20 April 2026. HS113 is largely unchanged and does not introduce requirements for roll checks on return or mandatory vehicle checks, including checks for children seated in back rows. The main addition is that excursion documentation must include the signature of the Person Responsible approving the trip.
The sleep monitoring rules (currently HS9, changing to HS107 from 20 April 2026) require each sleeping child to be monitored and checked for warmth, breathing, and general wellbeing at least every 10 minutes. The rule does not specify whether this applies to children sleeping in vehicles or in spaces outside the centre building. The rules on facilities for sleep (currently PF29, changing to PF124) also require that items used for children’s sleep allow them to lie flat. Car capsules and booster seats do not allow a child to lie flat, so leaving a child to sleep in these seats could be considered a breach of this requirement.
Other articles you may like to read:
A preschool teacher has been censured after she accidentally locked a 4-year-old girl in a van for more than four hours. She delivered three preschoolers to their homes in the childcare centre’s van after 3pm, then parked the car at her house and went to a funeral, not realising that another child was still in the van. Read the full story – https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/preschooler-shut-van-hours
A six-year-old boy woke up scared and in the dark after staff running an Auckland Council holiday programme left him locked in a van. Read the full story https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/110124652/auckland-boy-left-in-locked-van-while-on-councilrun-holiday-programme
