Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sep 2014 - #67

[sleepinoz]

Only going off a media article mentioning they no longer fostered any children. Who knows which one- there’s been 100’s of them!

As per my last post - do you have a link?

 

[SouthAussie]

yes, it’s funny how you need a license or ticket for everything these days but not for the massive responsibility of raising a child.

I was reading about the possibility that the govt department involved in fostering could be playing some part in the dead ends thus far- because the negative publicity involved in a govt department can be very detrimental towards the government party in power. I’m not saying I believe this- but it could be like the similar problems associated with the government run lab which totally dunced all the swabs in the Shandee Blackburn case.

The trouble is, being anti-FACS doesn't help.
The only thing that helps is signing up to be a foster parent, for people that qualify and have the ability and wherewithal.

 

[purpleandgreen]

yes, it’s funny how you need a license or ticket for everything these days but not for the massive responsibility of raising a child.

I was reading about the possibility that the govt department involved in fostering could be playing some part in the dead ends thus far- because the negative publicity involved in a govt department can be very detrimental towards the government party in power. I’m not saying I believe this- but it could be like the similar problems associated with the government run lab which totally dunced all the swabs in the Shandee Blackburn case.

And pro-creating a child too.

IMO

 

[Warshawski]

I'm not a lawyer, but reading the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 - my guess would be she would have to be 25 to be identified as the child, not sure about ID'ing herself - IMO

View - NSW legislation


(1AA) The name of a child or young person who is or has been under the parental responsibility of the Minister or in out-of-home care must not be published or broadcast in any form that may be accessible by a person in New South Wales, in any way that identifies the child or young person as being or having been under the parental responsibility of the Minister or in out-of-home care (however expressed).
Note—
Identifying the child or young person as being or having been a foster child or a ward of the State, or as being or having been in foster care or under the parental responsibility of the Minister, or in the care of an authorised carer, are all examples of identifying the child or young person as being or having been in out-of-home care.
(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) or (1AA) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until—
(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or
(b) the child or young person dies,
whichever occurs first.

I’ve known a couple of foster-care arrangements where it’s not been a secret at all .... just another child being reared in a caring environment, irrespective of the biological surroundings.

so here’s a random thought - what about if, instead of hiding everything away as if it’s a shameful situation, the ‘care’ for the child was focused upon so they were helped to understand & deal with their situation - before the end up just as f$#@ed up as so many others who have been through the foster system. Imo ..

 

[SouthAussie]

I’ve known a couple of foster-care arrangements where it’s not been a secret at all .... just another child being reared in a caring environment, irrespective of the biological surroundings.

so here’s a random thought - what about if, instead of hiding everything away as if it’s a shameful situation, the ‘care’ for the child was focused upon so they were helped to understand & deal with their situation - before the end up just as f$#@ed up as so many others who have been through the foster system. Imo ..

Because the child becomes stigmatised and teased by their peers. That is the reason for keeping the child's privacy.

It is not out of shame, it is to protect them from being removed from their biological family AND being stigmatised on top of it.

Kids can be cruel to each other. Without understanding the deep hurt they cause.

I, too, have friends who are raising a foster child. We know he is a foster child. The school children don't, nor do their parents who might inadvertently mention it in front of their own children.

And sometimes the child's privacy involves keeping them away from abusive and interfering bio-parents. Ones who may track them down and start trouble.

 

[Jaded325594]

Because the child becomes stigmatised and teased by their peers. That is the reason for keeping the child's privacy.

It is not out of shame, it is to protect them from being removed from their biological family AND being stigmatised on top of it.

Kids can be cruel to each other. Without understanding the deep hurt they cause.

I, too, have friends who are raising a foster child. We know he is a foster child. The school children don't, nor do their parents who might inadvertently mention it in front of their own children.

And sometimes the child's privacy involves keeping them away from abusive and interfering bio-parents. Ones who may track them down and start trouble.

I think secrecy causes or at least reinforces the stigma. And causes a whole other world of pain in terms of impacted social connections and sense of identity. Better to normalize different family structures....and people need to teach their kid not to be *advertiser censored**holes.

 

[iiiii's]

Didn't the same thing happen to the BM? And yet she was treated with care on this forum.
Because, really, this whole thing stems back to when William (and his sister) was removed ... and it snowballed from there. imo

FACS is seriously overwhelmed, there are not enough carers who are willing to take in these neglected and/or abused children, drugs are rife and leading to more and more problems for the young children.
It is a very sad situation, and there doesn't seem to be a magical solution - for any of the children who are living in bad situations.

I don't think anyone wants to see the return of the days when hoards of children were placed in large institutions until they were of legal age.

BM has not been identified as a POI/suspect in WT's case. The FFC has been. I'm not sure what is meant by this whole thing stemming back to the removal and snowballing from there. MOO bbm

 

[Warshawski]

Interesting when the Bio family could be seen as "playing the mental health card" that was OK by some , now it's on the other foot as the saying goes it's not OK it seems? IMO

And Btw I don't agree with people claiming that they ( or anyone ) are "playing the mental health card" no one knows the details , but the magistrate certainly will & will hear the case & make a ruling etc

People genuinely have mental health problems & for many many reasons, no wonder there is STILL a stigma around mental health & people wonder why people don't seek help ( which is not always available either until you are in crisis IMO )

All IMO

with all due respect Dr, I find the ‘attacking’ of one ‘view point’ over the other to have worn very thin.
Particularly since, at stage in the conversation, we are not discussing W’s bio family.
IMO, in any genuine discussion there will be opposing & differing thoughts & opinions to be considered, and hopefully, respected.

I haven’t got a sense from anyone here that they have a disregard for, or disbelief in, the validity of mental health issues. Any region of the human body may be challenged in its ability to function in a healthy state & require medical intervention.
Disappointingly, I don’t believe Mental Health is given the Gov focus for treatment that is so desperately needed - but that’s for a different conversation.

Personally, I struggle with a Not Guilty plea that is followed by a request to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act - Why ?

To me it says ‘I did do it’ - BUT I did it because I’m mentally unwell, so I want that taken into consideration when my punishment is being handed out.

Also IMO, criminal lawyers have a fair idea of the penalty that a particular misdemeanour or Crime will attract. .. so they tutor their clients in how to minimise the inevitable.

So on that basis - putting myself in those shoes - before a magistrate who’s suggested it’s not major in the scheme of things before her court - I ponder over whether I’d choose to pay a Fine or to now be classified as Mentally ill and (as you mentioned) face any stigma that may be attached. ... unless it may prove helpful in the long run to have that classification ?

all just my own thoughts & opinions.

 

[Warshawski]

Maybe take a look at what a Mental Health defence entails. I believe it means the person is ordered into treatment - if found liable.

I think (if this case isn't so severe, as seems to be stated by the magistrate) a fine is most likely the other outcome for the defendant - should the defendant be found liable - and isn't relying on the Mental Health Act.


Common Assault is an offence under section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison and/or a fine of $5,500.
Common Assault | Section 61 Crimes Act 1900 NSW


Under the current law, people who are found 'not guilty by reason of mental illness' may be detained indefinitely, or until the court is satisfied that members of the public will not be harmed by their release
The potential for indefinite detention has arguably resulted in people being deterred from using the defence. In 2011/2012, for example, there were only 29 findings of ‘not guilty by reason of mental illness.’

The new recommendations are much more progressive, and propose a period of treatment of the mentally ill person, after which attempts would be made to reintegrate them into the community.
The Mental Illness Defence in Criminal Trials | NSW Courts.

hey SA - I’d propose that in a situation where a psychologist has done their assessment of the Defendant & produced a Report that upheld the claim on Mental Illness - surely treatment for that Mental Illness would commence at that point.
in the 3 or more mths until the court hearing, the defendant may now be classified as ‘well’ so no inpatient detention will be required.

?
JMO

 

[Warshawski]

They are a few children of the tens of thousands of children who have inadequate living conditions in Australia. Who are removed.

It is a big problem. Parental choices. When the children are not placed first. I am not sure why people (anyone) procreate when they are not prepared to do everything in their power, all of the time, to nuture their children in an adequate manner.

I think all of the agencies are probably doing their burned out best. Making some mistakes along the way, due to the pressure and overwhelming needs.

And what are the high paid political boffins & departmental seat-warmers doing about this atrocious situation, while those ‘on the ground’ are collapsing under the strain & heartache of what they face constantly ?

 

[Travelling Wilbury]

with all due respect Dr, I find the ‘attacking’ of one ‘view point’ over the other to have worn very thin.
Particularly since, at stage in the conversation, we are not discussing W’s bio family.
IMO, in any genuine discussion there will be opposing & differing thoughts & opinions to be considered, and hopefully, respected.

I haven’t got a sense from anyone here that they have a disregard for, or disbelief in, the validity of mental health issues. Any region of the human body may be challenged in its ability to function in a healthy state & require medical intervention.
Disappointingly, I don’t believe Mental Health is given the Gov focus for treatment that is so desperately needed - but that’s for a different conversation.

Personally, I struggle with a Not Guilty plea that is followed by a request to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act - Why ?

To me it says ‘I did do it’ - BUT I did it because I’m mentally unwell, so I want that taken into consideration when my punishment is being handed out.

Also IMO, criminal lawyers have a fair idea of the penalty that a particular misdemeanour or Crime will attract. .. so they tutor their clients in how to minimise the inevitable.

So on that basis - putting myself in those shoes - before a magistrate who’s suggested it’s not major in the scheme of things before her court - I ponder over whether I’d choose to pay a Fine or to now be classified as Mentally ill and (as you mentioned) face any stigma that may be attached. ... unless it may prove helpful in the long run to have that classification ?

all just my own thoughts & opinions.

Imagine the poor picture it paints if someone were to book into a psychologist/psychiatrist and ask them “what can you diagnose me with so I can use that as an excuse”. I’m not saying that has happened, but you could be forgiven for taking it that way.
Since this is a discussion forum such events and actions are all worthy of discussion, I wouldn’t say we’re singling out the FFC’s. Their actions are instigating our discussion and concerns

 

[Warshawski]

Just a question, do we know (via link) that all Kids in their care have been lost to them? I would understand if they were, but I haven't seen any link to substantiate that statement.

How many children were in their care Sleep ?

William lost as we know & sister removed last November

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...dynamic-hot-test-score&V21spcbehaviour=append

 

[Warshawski]

And pro-creating a child too.

IMO

and yet every world leader could find a way to deal with this pandemic that is Covid ...

 

[Warshawski]

Because the child becomes stigmatised and teased by their peers. That is the reason for keeping the child's privacy.

It is not out of shame, it is to protect them from being removed from their biological family AND being stigmatised on top of it.

Kids can be cruel to each other. Without understanding the deep hurt they cause.

I, too, have friends who are raising a foster child. We know he is a foster child. The school children don't, nor do their parents who might inadvertently mention it in front of their own children.

And sometimes the child's privacy involves keeping them away from abusive and interfering bio-parents. Ones who may track them down and start trouble.

That’s my very point - there should not be the stigmatism; there should not be the cruelty. There should be honesty & openness, where children are helped to learn how to grow, to understand, to be resilient & to be kind.

it’s a sad world, just allowed to grow sadder - imo.

 

[deugirtni]

Also the 1st paragraph of the link, I find disturbing. Most claims are found to be untrue or unsubstantiated according to the link. By who? And yet, how many times have we heard adults, who were children in foster care, say their complaints of abuse and neglect were ignored or they were labelled liars. This forum is doing my head in. I have seen on this thread, huge debate about how children should be believed when it came to CSA, and now I am seeing arguments to back up why foster children might be a special breed who should not be believed. In the case of the FP's, the nsw police, over time have decided to press common assault charges. Something has occurred if FFC is wanting her charges heard under the mental health act and the MFC was considering his options about having his heard under the same act and then deciding not to. If the article about the FP's being estranged is to be believed, it is possible he did not want his heard under the act so that if he is found not guilty, he may be able to reconcile having care for the alleged child victim in this incident. This action by the police may mean the child victim has essentially lost her family. Did FACS help bring these complaints to the police attention? If not, why not? So many questions. MOO

The foster parent allegations come from a variety of sources.. not just from the foster children themselves, so foster parents have potential allegations coming from many more sources, imho, than just your average parents. I think it isn't that the child is not to be believed, but rather, that it needs to be recognized that while allegations against foster parents must always be investigated, they need to be looked at very objectively and deeply, as to who exactly is making the allegation and why. It's difficult to comprehend that if a child made the allegation, it wouldn't be believed... however, I guess it's possible that depending on the age of the child, the child could be following suggestions from the birth parent(?), or just not like the rules at the foster home and ... etc. etc. etc...... imo.

 

[SouthAussie]

And what are the high paid political boffins & departmental seat-warmers doing about this atrocious situation, while those ‘on the ground’ are collapsing under the strain & heartache of what they face constantly ?

In a perfect world, Warsh, there would be no reason to remove children from their bio homes. Because they would all be taken care of properly by their bio parents.

That perfect world that you mentioned, where children wouldn't pick on foster children and everyone could live in open harmony.

That perfect world that we do not live in.

imo

 

[JLZ]

Personally, I struggle with a Not Guilty plea that is followed by a request to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act - Why ?

To me it says ‘I did do it’ - BUT I did it because I’m mentally unwell, so I want that taken into consideration when my punishment is being handed out.

(snipped)--Me too. I suppose she's saying: Yes I'm struggling, and my treatment of the child wasn't good on that occasion, but it didn't cross the threshold of criminality; but if it did, I should be given mental health treatment, not punishment. The thing is, these are rich, reasonably educated people, who had the best opportunity to buy treatment for themselves already, before the child was harmed.

 

[SouthAussie]

(snipped)--Me too. I suppose she's saying: Yes I'm struggling, and my treatment of the child wasn't good on that occasion, but it didn't cross the threshold of criminality; but if it did, I should be given mental health treatment, not punishment. The thing is, these are rich, reasonably educated people, who had the best opportunity to buy treatment for themselves already, before the child was harmed.

Do we know that she wasn't having treatment already?

AFAIK we know absolutely no details about any of this. Unless I have missed something in an article somewhere.

 

[iiiii's]

I don't have a problem with the charges being heard under the mental health act. Although we don't have the details, I can easily imagine the types of conditions developing from surrounding factors that have brought about a mental health situation. I struggle with these possible conditions not being identified as a risk before this child was endangered. Not through the FFC's insight or her husband's insight or anyone who might have been treating her or the department she represents in caring for the child. I would think the department would have been very aware of the types of risks this family were carrying after WT disappeared. MOO

I'll also add that the police would have had a duty of care to report to FACS as soon as they had the FFC in their line of sight as a POI/Suspect in WT's disappearance. Did they report to FACS or consider that another child in their care was carrying risk? Would the department not see that as a high risk, untenable situation for a child to be in?

 

[iiiii's]

I don't have a problem with the charges being heard under the mental health act. Although we don't have the details, I can easily imagine the types of conditions developing from surrounding factors that have brought about a mental health situation. I struggle with these possible conditions not being identified as a risk before this child was endangered. Not through the FFC's insight or her husband's insight or anyone who might have been treating her or the department she represents in caring for the child. I would think the department would have been very aware of the types of risks this family were carrying after WT disappeared. MOO

I'll also add that the police would have had a duty of care to report to FACS as soon as they had the FFC in their line of sight as a POI/Suspect in WT's disappearance. Did they report to FACS or consider that another child in their care was carrying risk? Would the department not see that as a high risk, untenable situation for a child to be in?

Jumping off my own post, there have been three occasions that the public know of, over the last 7.5 years that WT has been missing, where the police have had to clear suspicion about 1 or both FP's involvement in his disappearance. At the initial stages, when police 1st work with those closest to the victim or were the last ones to see him. 2nd, when GJ interviewed both FP's several years later and bugged their vehicle, 3rd, the most recent searches at Kendall. That's a long time to not be cleared of suspicion or at least clarify anything the police may have doubts about. Meanwhile, another child has been living in that atmosphere for most of her life! MOO