Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #69

[JBowie]

BUT stating "the most safest town in NSW", when not even knowing the next street from Benaroon Dr. in Kendall, that do I find strange. Like so many things, she said (in addition to her style of expression).

I gather that she did not grow up in Kendall herself. She mentions in the 2015 TV interview conducted by a cop that her brothers have raised kids in the area:

P[oliceman]: I think it’s fair to say the community has asked that very question, particularly on a semi-rural property, kids don’t just disappear.

M[other]: No they don’t, they don’t. My brothers have brought their kids up around there, they would run those streets with absolutely no fear. Every other house on that street with kids, those kids are on that street with absolutely no fear. There’s no reason for them not to be safe at Nanna’s house.

IN THEIR WORDS: William Tyrrell's parents talk of the day their boy went missing and the 'living nightmare' they endure

 

[Green beans]

I will always believe when someone feels threatened, intimidated and scared for their health & safety. Especially children.

Australia has a huge problem with domestic abuse.
<modsnip - personalizing> Foster family stated the child’s assult bruising was from a horse fall, which they wish to use their mental health to abuse charge hearing..
<off topic-personalizing>

ALL perps need to take accountability for their actions.

 

[JBowie]

<modsnip - post that violated TOS removed>

IMO, DoCS, FACS, DCJ have a largely thankless, and frankly impossible job. In many cases they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Forcibly removing kids from bio parents is fraught with emotions and difficulties.

Sure, they have made some serious errors over the years -- many of which related to caseload and the time needed to get around to things with a limited number of caseworkers -- and I guess they are now quite sensitive to criticism of any kind.

I guess the Coroner will have something to say about their role in the WT case and, if she considers that due process wasn't followed and that was in someway germane to WTs disappearance, then they may have a case to answer.

However, my guess is that due process was indeed followed in screening of the FPs. As with interviewing job applicants, you can only go by how people present themselves and their references. Once on the job, it doesn't always work out for either side.

 

[dragon52]

Forcibly removing kids from bio parents is fraught with emotions and difficulties.

 

[LIBPOP]

What is Stalking? - NSW Police Public Site

Stalking is a crime. It is an offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Stalking is defined under this law and includes:

‘the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to a person’s place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or leisure activity’.

Stalking involves a persistent course of conduct or actions by a person which are intended to maintain contact with or exercise power and control over another person. These actions cause distress, loss of control, fear or harassment to another person and occur more than once.

Stalking can involve threats or sexual innuendo and the stalker generally tries to intimidate or induce fear in the person they are stalking. The person being stalked may only realise they are being stalked once they identify a pattern of strange or suspicious incidents occurring, such as:

• phone calls
• text messages
• messages left on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter etc.
• notes left on the their car
• strange or unwanted gifts left at their home
• an awareness that they are being followed
• being continually stared at or gestured to by another person.

The person being stalked can often develop a sense of loss of control over their lives and can be forced into changing their routine and behaviours.

The criminal offence of stalking is contained under section 13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. To prove an offence of stalking the police must be able to produce evidence to a court. The police evidence must prove that the accused person stalked another person with the intention of causing another person to fear physical or mental harm.

 

[JBowie]

Enjoy the photos.

OK, now I get it.

Even so, regardless of the masthead, an experienced journo such as she ought to be able to do a lot better than that.

The loss of sub-editors and the blue pencil is apparent every day.

 

[SouthAussie]

OK, now I get it.

Even so, regardless of the masthead, an experienced journo such as she ought to be able to do a lot better than that.

The loss of sub-editors and the blue pencil is apparent every day.

Agreed.

I think that sentence about FM being seen driving has been published in the DM before. Around the time the recent search was happening. I have some recall about some questions about it then.

 

[dragon52]

Forcibly removing kids from bio parents is fraught with emotions and difficulties.

The emphasis should always have been on supporting the parents and children. Removing children should be a last resort.

I'm going to be devil's advocate here.

IMO, DoCS, FACS, DCJ have a largely thankless, and frankly impossible job. In many cases they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Forcibly removing kids from bio parents is fraught with emotions and difficulties.

Sure, they have made some serious errors over the years -- many of which related to caseload and the time needed to get around to things with a limited number of caseworkers -- and I guess they are now quite sensitive to criticism of any kind.

I guess the Coroner will have something to say about their role in the WT case and, if she considers that due process wasn't followed and that was in someway germane to WTs disappearance, then they may have a case to answer.

However, my guess is that due process was indeed followed in screening of the FPs. As with interviewing job applicants, you can only go by how people present themselves and their references. Once on the job, it doesn't always work out for either side.

Docs Social workers, consists mainly of new graduates. The life span of a a Doc’s SW is roughly 7 years before they leave, burnt out and disillusioned. Their work load is usually immense and they are expected to adhere to strict guide lines. They mainly go into Social work to make a positive difference but soon learn that they are expected to follow rules and regulations. Case workers, like their supervisors and senior Managers more than likely come from upper socio economic backgrounds and have a bias towards their poorer clients. An example being Prue Goward, who was the previous Minister for Comunity services who recently wrote an article in the Australian describing some, poor, working class parents unfit to look after children simply because they were lower class.

 

[Couldbe]

Agreed.

I think that sentence about FM being seen driving has been published in the DM before. Around the time the recent search was happening. I have some recall about some questions about it then.

Wasn't it by her own admission (in FFC walkthrough video) that she was seen by a truck driver who thought that she had pulled over to let him pass, but she had actually pulled over with her head out of the window looking for William.

 

[dragon52]

And sometimes children need to be removed from a toxic environment for their own safety. But the role of Docs should be primarily to support the biological family. Perhaps help with drug and alcohol counselling, housing etc. Find temporary, safe accomodation for the children. Don’t forget that Foster parents, do a wonderful job, but it is a job and it is paid for. The Foster parents should not be making decisions about whether the biological parents should have visitation rights.

 

[JBowie]

Of course! And sometimes children need to be removed from a toxic environment for their own safety. But the role of Docs should be primarily to support the biological family. Perhaps help with drug and alcohol counselling, housing etc. Find temporary, safe accomodation for the children.

As I understand it, their charter covers all of the above. IMO the primary consideration should always be any children involved.

Don’t forget that Foster parents, do a wonderful job, but it is a job and it is paid for. The Foster parents should not be making decisions about whether the biological parents should have visitation rights.

AFAIK, visitation rights, etc, are decided by the department's officers, not the foster parents.

 

[dragon52]

As I understand it, their charter covers all of the above. IMO the primary consideration should always be any children involved.



AFAIK, visitation rights, etc, are decided by the department's officers, not the foster parents.

In the case of William’s foster parents the FM had a great deal of influence on the visitation rights of the biological parents. The FM complained that the visits was having a detrimental affect of William’s behaviour. I have been following this case since the very beginning.

 

[LolaAngelina]

In the case of William’s foster parents the FM had a great deal of influence on the visitation rights of the biological parents. The FM complained that the visits was having a detrimental affect of William’s behaviour. I have been following this case since the very beginning.

The foster parents had no influence over parental visits. That was set by the courts and FACS. Of course the foster parents can give their opinion on how the visits are going if asked.

 

[HilaryHormone]

In the case of William’s foster parents the FM had a great deal of influence on the visitation rights of the biological parents. The FM complained that the visits was having a detrimental affect of William’s behaviour. I have been following this case since the very beginning.

FC’s are required to share their observations and information about a child’s presentation following family contact though, it’s part of their job as the people who really get to know and understand the child.

 

[Ytho]

The foster parents had no influence over parental visits. That was set by the courts and FACS. Of course the foster parents can give their opinion on how the visits are going if asked.

Ideally this would be the case but you do not know this for certain. Unless you were privy to their communications and prove so, you cannot claim it as fact.

 

[LolaAngelina]

Ideally this would be the case but you do not know this for certain. Unless you were privy to their communications and prove so, you cannot claim it as fact.

Both children were under permanent care of the minister until 18. The foster parents have no say in the amount of visits, times etc. Along with many other decisions, they were not legal guardians so everything had to be approved by FACS. I don’t need proof to say they don’t decide on visits. That’s how the guardianship works. If anyone wants to say as fact that fm was the one making these decisions it’s on them to provide proof or say it’s just their opinion.

 

[HilaryHormone]

Ideally this would be the case but you do not know this for certain. Unless you were privy to their communications and prove so, you cannot claim it as fact.

No-one here has access to the communications or details of the case though, so claims that FC’s influenced visitation are supposition. It is very much a legal fact that the courts dictate visitation etc.

 

[iiiii's]

So, I'm wondering, (if there is a reason) why the FM was publicised as a POI on day 2 of the latest search. Is that relevant? Were the police going to do these searches based on boxes that needed to be ticked for the coroner, or was something found on day 2 to tie the FFC's statement to that precise location. I imagine while they were digging on the 1st day, someone coming forward and saying they saw the car being driven down Batar Creek road before 9.37am, or finding WT's sandals in the vicinity of where the FFC said she drove to, so throwing them out the car window? But something that places her in the frame and refutes an explanation for a piece of evidence that is crucial to the case.
Wild guessing now.

 

[nightrider17]

iiiii's - So, I'm wondering, (if there is a reason) why the FM was publicised as a POI on day 2 of the latest search.


Do you think she was named as POI on day 2 - because they had just impounded the FGran car to search it and wanted any information from public that someone saw a person driving that particular car. To infer possibly a female was driving this car, due to being unable to identify the person visually due to suppression orders.

 

[iiiii's]

iiiii's - So, I'm wondering, (if there is a reason) why the FM was publicised as a POI on day 2 of the latest search.


Do you think she was named as POI on day 2 - because they had just impounded the FGran car to search it and wanted any information from public that someone saw a person driving that particular car. To infer possibly a female was driving this car, due to being unable to identify the person visually due to suppression orders.

It's possible but then if someone did come forward saying they had seen the car, and it refuted the "official" timeline, I would want that witness statement put through the ringer, because with years of this case being put in the media, I would suspect that witness statement had the potential to be highly prejudicial. MOO