Mother Sues Singapore Preschool After Son Was Allegedly Pushed From Slide Twice

SINGAPORE — A mother is suing a preschool for negligence after her four-year-old son was allegedly pushed off an indoor slide twice by another child, with the family claiming teachers failed to provide adequate supervision and that the play area lacked safety mats.

The civil trial began at Singapore's State Courts on Sept. 7, more than two years after the incident, which happened on July 12, 2024.

The mother is seeking an unspecified amount in damages. The identities of the family and preschool have been protected by a gag order.

Boy allegedly pushed from slide twice

According to the mother's evidence in court, her son was playing on a roughly 75cm-high indoor slide when another boy allegedly pushed him off it.

The child fell to the ground but got back up and attempted to climb the slide again.

The other boy, who was sitting at the top, allegedly pushed him off a second time.

The mother said her son used his hand to break his fall and narrowly avoided hitting another child who was riding a tricycle nearby.

He then ran toward the teachers to show them his hand.

The precise extent of his injuries was not disclosed in the court report.

Mother says teachers were distracted

The mother presented four video clips from the preschool's play area to support her case.

She alleged the footage showed teachers failing to pay sufficient attention to the children.

In one clip, she highlighted a girl standing at the top of the slide, saying that a fall could have resulted in an injury.

Another clip showed a child hitting his head against a wall while playing behind the teachers.

The mother alleged that the teachers appeared distracted and were both looking at their phones when the incident occurred, only becoming aware of what had happened after the girl cried.

The remaining footage showed interactions between her son and another child, including what the mother described as a head-on collision.

She said her son could be heard saying that he was in pain afterward, but claimed the teachers did not appear to notice what had happened.

Dispute over safety mats

Another major issue in the case is whether the slide should have had shock-absorbent mats beneath it.

The mother told the court that there were no safety mats under the slide when her son was injured.

She said photographs of the preschool's play area from 2017 appeared to show safety mats surrounding the same slide.

According to her, those mats were no longer present when the 2024 incident occurred.

The preschool's lawyer challenged her evidence during cross-examination.

The lawyer questioned the mother's description of the supervision provided by the teachers and asked whether her reference to "no effective supervision" was based on regulations issued by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA).

The mother also acknowledged that photographs regularly sent to her by the preschool showed her son playing in the area, but said she generally focused on her child's face rather than examining the surroundings.

Mother says she trusted the preschool

The mother, who is herself an educator, told the court that she understood teachers could not monitor every child every second.

However, she argued that staff should be particularly attentive around areas where children could be injured, such as the slide.

She maintained that teachers should have been positioned closer to the slide during playtime.

The defence questioned her understanding of what constitutes effective supervision and whether she had previously raised concerns about the safety arrangements.

Family became emotional in court

The proceedings became emotional when the parents watched the video footage in court.

The boy's father was seen covering his eyes and crying as the footage was played, according to CNA's report cited by AsiaOne.

The case highlights the difficult questions that can arise when young children are injured while under the supervision of childcare professionals — particularly when responsibility for preventing accidents is disputed.

Mother also contacted ECDA

The mother told the court that she had contacted the Early Childhood Development Agency and wanted the agency to interview both her and her husband about what had happened.

She said they were not given the opportunity to do so, although she acknowledged that she could not remember the precise details of her correspondence with the agency.

The ECDA is responsible for regulating the early childhood sector in Singapore and oversees requirements relating to the safety and well-being of children in licensed early childhood development centres.

Preschool safety remains a wider concern

The lawsuit comes amid continued public attention on safety standards in Singapore's preschool sector.

In a separate 2024 case, an 11-month-old boy suffered first- and second-degree burns after crawling onto a hot outdoor surface at a preschool. His mother alleged that he had been left unsupervised, while the ECDA said it had begun an investigation and instructed the preschool to ensure staff exercised vigilance in supervising infants.

More recently, the government announced plans to strengthen the preschool sector, including expanding access to government-supported preschools and recruiting more infant-care educators. ECDA said it plans to recruit 1,800 additional infant-care educators by 2030.

These developments come as Singapore continues to expand its preschool capacity while facing the challenge of ensuring that growth is matched by adequate staffing, training and safety oversight.

Court has yet to determine responsibility

The current case remains a civil claim, and the mother's allegations have not been established as facts by the court.

The trial is ongoing, and the court has yet to determine whether the preschool or its staff breached their duty of care, whether the absence of safety mats contributed to the child's injuries, or what damages, if any, should be awarded.

For parents, however, the case raises a much broader question: when young children are placed under professional care, how much supervision is enough — and who is responsible when something goes wrong?

That question will ultimately be for the court to answer as the trial continues.

WWC ONE MEDIA J.M.D