WA Tribunal finds serious supervision failures after child leaves OSHC service and walks home alone

A five-year-old child climbed a fence, crossed a road and walked home alone after leaving a Western Australian outside school hours care service unnoticed during a vacation care session.

The State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia has found serious failures in the supervision and safety systems of an OSHC service operating from Yakamia Primary School in Albany.

The child, who was aged just over five-and-a-half, left the service on 3 October 2025 and travelled between approximately 245 and 387 metres to their home without adult supervision.

During the journey, the child climbed a waist-height metal fence and crossed a road with a 50 kilometre-per-hour speed limit and an operating bus route. Depending on the route taken, the child may also have crossed or passed near a Creek.

The child had never previously walked home alone.

According to the agreed facts outlined in a decision published on 25 August 2026, 24 children remained at the service at the time of the incident, with approximately 14 playing across different areas of the outdoor environment.

Two educators supervising outside were also cleaning toys when another child alerted them that the five-year-old had “run away”.

Staff searched the area, initiated a lockdown and completed a headcount, confirming the child was missing. The service later contacted the child’s father, unaware that the child had already arrived home.

The child’s stepmother discovered the child alone at the front door shortly before 2 pm. When questioned, the child said, “I came home”, explained that it was “just me” and said they had run away and jumped a fence.

The agreed facts identified a series of failures that contributed to the incident.

The service’s Child Safe Environment Risk Assessment did not identify the creek or a street as hazards accessible from the school grounds. Consequently, it did not include measures to eliminate or control the risks presented by the nearby waterway and road.

Educator positioning was also inconsistent with the supervision maps contained in the service’s policy. The educators were positioned together, while playground equipment obstructed their view of children near the fence line.

Their simultaneous cleaning duties created an additional distraction from supervision.

The service’s Supervision of Children Policy had not been adequately customised to reflect the physical environment of the site. It did not expressly prioritise the supervision of children over cleaning, administration or other duties that did not involve direct engagement with children.

Although the policy contained supervision maps, the provider had not adequately trained or tested educators on their familiarity with them. Regular audits and spot checks had also not been undertaken to confirm the policy was being followed.

Headcount arrangements were another area of concern. The last count before the incident occurred at midday, with the next scheduled for 3 pm. Had another child not alerted educators, the child’s absence may not have been detected until the next scheduled count.

The provider had also not installed visual barriers to mark out-of-bounds areas or introduced identifiers that could assist others to recognise children who moved beyond the service boundary.

Although the premises were not required to have fencing designed to prevent preschool-aged children from climbing over or passing through it, the open school environment and easy access to public spaces required particularly attentive supervision.

The provider admitted responsibility from the beginning of the Department’s investigation and had not previously faced disciplinary action before the Tribunal.

Following the incident, it introduced fortnightly supervision audits, revised educator positioning and child group arrangements, updated risk assessments and expanded staff onboarding, mentoring and professional development.

Physical barriers and temporary fencing have also been introduced for vacation care programs. Children now wear high-visibility vests and wristbands displaying the service’s name and telephone number.

The provider has also commenced discussions with the school about further improvements to the physical boundaries surrounding the service.

The case reinforces that compliance with minimum educator-to-child ratios does not, on its own, establish that children are being adequately supervised.

Effective supervision requires educators to be actively engaged, appropriately positioned and free from competing duties that limit their capacity to observe and respond.

For OSHC services operating from shared school grounds, risk assessments must also consider the surrounding environment, not simply the areas formally used by the program. Nearby roads, waterways, bushland, open access points and climbable boundaries must be identified and supported by practical control measures.

Policies alone are not sufficient. Providers must ensure expectations are understood, consistently applied and tested through training, observations, audits and regular review.