We don't. I was under the impression it was for himself. Police would know exactly, from pharmacy records.Do we know what script FMFC had to get filled during his trip for the call that fateful morning
We don't. I was under the impression it was for himself. Police would know exactly, from pharmacy records.Do we know what script FMFC had to get filled during his trip for the call that fateful morning
I think this is quite a thorough summation of various angles that posters have adopted in discussing what has prompted their suspicions, and this has been reflected in their posts here.William went missing whilst under the FPs care and I'd hate to think of the psychological impact (this alone) will have on LT, but regardless of this, they still played a parenting role with both children. Therefore, I don't get the back and forth banter over their classification, as this can't be disputed despite anyone's opinions on the FM and FF.
I agree there is enough to raise suspicion on the behaviour of FM in interviews but it doesn't exactly prove anything.
If I'm honest the time it occurred has always been the most perplexing thing to me and I've always thought she's hiding something. But then add in the fact her identity has been concealed (for whatever reasons) and it could easily explain how this plays a large factor in the public forming perceptions on her.
It's all bizarre to me, as I understand the necessity behind it (from a legal perspective) yet also the rationale of those who suspect a more sinister role from her (in him vanishing, at that specific time).
There's some great discussion content for debate on here and very respectful people but lately I've noticed that some are throwing in unnecessary speculation - that is not only irrelevant to the case, but disrespectful of young William.
He was a three year old child with medical conditions and it's sad to see one photograph of him being dissected to bits to say he looked neglected and taken as confirmation, of this. I am personally thinking there's something more we're not being told by the FM however there's no doubt in my mind (from looking at that photo) he looked normal and that they provided a protective, nurturing environment for him.
FACs/DOCs and the intiital police investigation have royally messed a lot up in this case but it's hard to read some remarks about William's appearance when everyone has knowledge of his asthma and other disorders.
If I am overstepping the mark with my comments, I apologise, as I also don't wish to tread on anyone's toes or offend other members.
In examining possibilities of what existed or may have occurred, and is relevant or irrelevant to the case, in my opinion is going to appear disrespectful to the foster parents.
We don't. I was under the impression it was for himself. Police would know exactly, from pharmacy records.
Sorry if this has been discussed before ...
Apparently the foster parents were planning on adopting William and his sister. LT would be approx 12 y.o. now and would have a say in whether she wished to be adopted. Even if the fosters had only applied for "sole responsibility", it seems they would need the consent of a 12 y.o. child.
from: NSW - Out of Home Care Adoption
Who is required to give consent to adoption?
For children under the parental responsibility of the Minister, their individual family circumstances will determine whose consent is required.
The consent of the birth parents and the Minister is required when:
The consent of the child is required if the child is aged 12 years or over and is deemed to have sufficient maturity to give consent.
- the child is under 12 years of age, or
- the child (age 12-18) has been in the care of the prospective adoptive parents for less than 2 years, or
- the child (age 12-18) is deemed to not have sufficient maturity to give consent.
from: Foster carer legal rights and responsibilities
Sole parental responsibility
Authorised carers now have the option to apply for sole parental responsibility for children and young people who have been in their care for two years or more.
Under legislation proclaimed in March 2004, a sole parental responsibility order gives you most of the powers and responsibilities which, by law, parents have in relation to their children. You could make long-term decisions for the child or young person and decide for yourself about their best interests without the need to consult with the designated agency.
A sole parental responsibility order is a long term order intended to last until the child or young person is 18, and is aimed at increasing their sense of stability. The order requires the consent of the birth parents and the child or young person if they are over 12.
Regardless of what happens to the foster carers in this case, this needs to be seriously looked at IMO.
I can't understand why WT and LT were being considered for adoption given their biological parents involvement and desire to have their children back.
I know 2 lots of foster parents and know 2 different people who work for the equivalent of FACS in different states and none of them can understand it either.
Foster care in Australia is (meant to be) about reunification with the biological parents. It very rarely results in adoption and normally it's long term placement.
IMO, something has gone awry here and needs to be looked at.
Like if I'm questioning when the cuppa tea happened - why not question was there a strong bond - because this information is all coming from the same person.
A law was brought in, in NSW. It said that if foster children were to be considered long term foster placements, then they could be considered for adoption (I think after two years placement). It has been discussed in back-threads.
They brought in the law so that foster children are not in this perpetual state of limbo. Living here, living there, until their bio parents get their act together (if ever). So the children could have some security and permanency.
I think you can find the details under NSW Permanency Placement Principles.
Restoration to the bio parents is still the primary focus ... but they have put a time limit on the bio parents. Maybe to try to make them get serious about their life decisions.
I can't understand why WT and LT were being considered for adoption given their biological parents involvement and desire to have their children back.
I was aware of the law change but will have to look into it more. It still seems peculiar to me given how young these kids were and that the bios were still interested in their kids.
And I'm not just thinking about the children and bio parents, I'm thinking of future foster parents who think they are going to be able to adopt through the foster system.
But as SB pointed out, perhaps LT turning 12 prompted some of these recent events? Maybe she didn't want to be adopted and that caused tension in the house?
I understand the BM has William’s siblings in her care. I don’t understand why it’s ok for her to raise those two, but not William and LT.
I was aware of the law change but will have to look into it more. It still seems peculiar to me given how young these kids were and that the bios were still interested in their kids.
And I'm not just thinking about the children and bio parents, I'm thinking of future foster parents who think they are going to be able to adopt through the foster system.
But as SB pointed out, perhaps LT turning 12 prompted some of these recent events? Maybe she didn't want to be adopted and that caused tension in the house?
(snipped) If he was captured on the tennis club camera returning home, he would be driving in the opposite direction--not towards Lakewood.8.50? MFC captured on tennis club camera, returns home
(snipped) If he was captured on the tennis club camera returning home, he would be driving in the opposite direction--not towards Lakewood.
A theory: all speculation only:
7.37 photo taken
fall from balcony
8 ish. MFC drives to hide body
8.50? MFC captured on tennis club camera, returns home
9? MFC leaves again for meeting/chemist
10.30 MFC returns home
10.30 FFC realises shoes still here - drives to hide them near riding club. Uses family car, not grandmother car. (speculation)
What makes you think he'd been off the patio without shoes by 9:37?I have o:37?ften wondered if the photo was taken at 7:37 and the time was manipulated (corrected) to 9:37+/-.
I look at Wm's feet in the now iconic photo. Busy boy, all over the house, the deck, the yard, biking, crashing, with and without shoes, I'd expect adorable, little, well-traveled, dirty feet by 9:37.
His are still pretty pink.
I have wondered if tea didn't happen twice -- and FGM and FD were occupied again, when the drive happened, and were unaware of her absence.
It might add more hours into the morning timeline.
JMO
Yes, I agree he looks like a normal, healthy weight in that picture. This is in contrast to the last photos we see of him at FGM's house in which he appears to have lost weight.A pic of the bruise is in this non-paywalled article. Third photo in the article.
William couldn't have been that skinny ... he has a double chin in the pic.
Why suspicion has lifted on missing boy's family
Are you sure about that? I thought the the BM did report her concerns to FACS about those very things?Right but BM never reported any concerns to FACS about bruising, under weight etc.