Child Left Locked in an Early Childhood Van for Almost 50 minutes

Search Newsroom Posts

Child Left Locked in an Early Childhood Van for Almost 50 minutes

NEWS/OPINION EDITORIAL – 7 April 2026
UPDATED – 22 May 2026

A young child was left alone in a locked early childhood centre van for almost 50 minutes in summer heat on 1 December 2022.

This serious incident at Kakapo Creek centre became public in 2026 through a report by the New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal of its findings concerning the conduct of two teaching staff. The Ministry of Education did not begin to look into the centre’s health and safety procedures or its compliance with ECE supervision, staffing, and other relevant regulations until 18 January 2023. The incident was kept secret and not shared with the sector so others could learn from it and prevent similar failures.

Two certificated teachers (one full, one provisional) took nine children on an excursion using the centre van. They returned at around 2.05pm. Two children were asleep. One woke and was taken inside. At 2.39pm, a teacher moved the van to a parking space and locked it, leaving the second child inside. The child was not noticed missing until 3.28pm, when a parent arriving at the centre noticed movement and heard screaming from inside the van.

On 7 April 2026, the Office of Early Childhood Education asked the Ministry of Education for comment on the case and whether it accepted any responsibility or accountability. A month later, on 6 May, the Ministry replied.

It confirmed it had known about the incident since the morning after it occurred, when centre owner Kaye McKean notified them.

The Ministry stated that the centre met all relevant regulations and licensing criteria. In its view, no standards relating to child safety, wellbeing, supervision, curriculum, or the duties of the person responsible had been breached.

We asked the Ministry: “As the Government’s principal advisor on ECE policy and regulation and the agency responsible for ensuring licensed services keep children safe and meet regulatory requirements, does the Ministry accept accountability for child safety outcomes?”

The Ministry responded: “Licensed service providers are legally responsible and accountable for meeting the Regulations and relevant licensing criteria.”

The Ministry pointed to the new statutory role of the Director of Regulation, who must uphold the principle that children’s health, safety, and wellbeing are paramount. Yet in 2022, at the time of the incident the Ministry held responsibility for overseeing early childhood services and making sure they meet regulations upholding children’s health, safety, and wellbeing. There is strong precedent for the view that government cannot distance itself from accountability when regulatory systems fail. The Abuse in Care – Royal Commission of Inquiry made this clear 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.”

Tribunal Findings

The New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal found the two teachers who took the child on the excursion 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, Kakapo Creek, asked for name suppression. It said 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.

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 adults in the centre noticed the child was missing. A parent arriving at 3.28pm saw movement in the van and the child inside, screaming.

Gaps in the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal report

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. 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 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.

END.

FYI: What the Regulations and Licensing Criteria Required then and Changes made from 2026

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.

Before 2026, the excursions licensing criterion HS17 required services to have communication systems so staff knew where children were during an excursion. However, it did not require a roll to be taken when returning to the centre, nor did it require staff to check vehicles to ensure no children were left inside.

A new excursions criterion, HS113, replaced HS17 on 20 April 2026. HS113 is largely unchanged. It still does not require a roll check on return or mandatory vehicle checks, including checks of back rows. The main addition is that excursion documentation must include the signature of the Person Responsible approving the trip.

The sleep‑monitoring rules (previously HS9, now HS107) require each sleeping child to be checked at least every 10 minutes for warmth, breathing, and general wellbeing. The rule does not specify whether this applies to children who are enrolled and attending the centre but are sleeping in vehicles or in spaces outside the centre building.

The rules on sleep facilities (previously PF29, now PF124) 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.