What does Robert do for a living? Even though The Daily Telegraph reported Robert as employed, I suspect he may have asked for a leave of absence from his job for an unspecified amount of time, a common occurrance after a child goes missing.
I am not sure what giving up your parental rights entails? Obviously you wouldn't have custody of the child, so does it mean you give up visiting rights? TIA
Respectfully snipped~
The Telegraph reported he works for Woolworths, a supermarket chain, but didn't say what his position was or if it was a part time or full time job.
So it could be anything from working the loading dock, packing shelves, packing people's online orders from a factory, delivering groceries, working the registers, or management.
Again I will speak from personal experience only about giving up parental rights.
My sis never gave up parental rights to her first three kids, but DoCS and their dad prefer that she has supervised visitations.
But with her 4th child to a different dad, they didn't even let her leave the hospital with the baby. They sent her and the baby off to a mothers retreat for a couple of weeks, where they teach parenting skills while assessing the mothers capabilities, and to see if they are bonding with the baby.
My sis wasn't. It was clear that her needs were always put ahead of her baby sons.
They called me to see if I would take temp custody of the baby, but I couldn't do it this time, since I had just had a baby of my own. He was so fortunate to be placed with an amazing couple , but at the time it was only temp.
DoCS even brought the baby to her house for supervised visitation, but my sis had better things to do, and wasn't at home at the arranged time.:furious:
She had to attend multiple family court hearings in an attempt to get custody of her son back, back she failed to attend the hearings.:furious:
(So it's clear that DoCS has a strong focus on trying to keep a child with their bio parent, before just taking away custody.)
At this point DoCS
strongly encouraged her to sign over her parental rights, so that her baby could stay permanently with the foster parents. She didn't care about him, but refused to sign the papers. (she likes being able to tell random people that her kids were stolen from her).
In the end, because she did not attend the final hearing she lost her parental rights to him completely.
But as I said, the foster parents are fabulous, and always tell their son about his 'tummy mummy'. They even have a photo of her next to his bed, and he gives her a kiss each night. (so glad he doesn't know what she's really like).
They want B (sis' son) to always know his bio family, including his tummy mummy. So even though they have no legal obligation to allow my sis to see B , they are happy to meet up with her , so that B and his bio mum can spend time together.
She has seen him once in the last 3 years. (he's 4) We all met up at Maccas (including her other 3 kids) , but a DoCS worker instisted she MUST be there to supervise, even though the arrangement was made through both families.
(my mum and I have regular contact with B and his new family).
Now back to Kiesha...... I went back to beginning of the thread last night, and looked for all the links regarding Chris.
The only MSM reference I could find regarding him signing over any rights came from Kristis BFF, who had been looking after Kristi and Robs toddler for the first two weeks after Kiesha went missing.
She's also the one who accused him of pointing a gun at Rob and the kids, while riding past on a bike. (when Chris was allegedly in the hosp getting his toe amputated).
She also publicly denied that Kiesha was ever hospitalised for the bite mark!
So now I really don't know if he signed away his rights or not.
If anyone else finds a different source for this info, please post.
ETA:
Bold and underlined by me~
Kylie Marshall, a friend of Kiesha's mother, told the Herald the gun allegations had been reported to police only after the child's disappearance.
'Four weeks ago the father rode past on a bike when Robbie was out hanging the clothes on the line with the two girls, Brianna and Kiesha, and pointed a gun at them,'' she said.
But a spokesman for Mr Weippeart said he was at Nepean Hospital at the time, having his toe amputated. ''We don't want a trial by media; we've heard these allegations,'' he said.
Ms Marshall also alleged Mr Weippeart had not seen his daughter for five years and had signed court documents saying he did not want contact with her.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/missing-c...r-20100805-11kt2.html?from=age_ft&autostart=1
But Ms Marshall also denies Kiesha's admission to hospital, when she was about 18 months old, for treatment to an adult's bite to her shoulder. Ms Abrahams was charged with that assault but no conviction was recorded.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/little-girl-lost-and-a-city-searches-for-answers-20100806-11oii.html
