Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #17

[Makara]

We don't know who put the complaint in. My point about the suppression order is that the FP's identity is apparently suppressed to protect children in their care and yet the identity of BS was not suppressed when the children in their care would come under the same govt. dept. and would become easily identifiable in their community.

The difference being that the children in the Spedding's care were not fostered. MS had custody of them, they are her grandchildren.

 

[Bohemian]

We don't know who put the complaint in. My point about the suppression order is that the FP's identity is apparently suppressed to protect children in their care and yet the identity of BS was not suppressed when the children in their care would come under the same govt. dept. and would become easily identifiable in their community.

The difference being that the children in the Spedding's care were not fostered. MS had custody of them, they are her grandchildren.

Thanks, frogwell and Makara, that's cleared that part up. I thought I was missing something in translation.

From what I understand BS and his wife solicited MSM attention in the early days when he was named (remember the dark-glassed interview beside his work van). There may be a suppression order as far as her grandchildren are concerned but I think the boat has sailed for both of them. That's what I meant about the legal advice they were receiving at that time. No way would it be a good idea to garner that type of publicity in a case like this. He's still doing it too (think youtube video just before 60 Mins story went to air). Dumb, and I ain't no lawyer.

 

[Karo]

They would still come under the same rules, surely, since they were kinship fostered under the care of Children's Services surely? However, the children were rehomed by all accounts so perhaps it was different.

The difference being that the children in the Spedding's care were not fostered. MS had custody of them, they are her grandchildren.

 

[frogwell]

The difference being that the children in the Spedding's care were not fostered. MS had custody of them, they are her grandchildren.

I see the difference in the point you are making, but I would have to do further investigation to see if the same types of rules apply. Whilst WT is in the care of the FP's, is he not considered to be in their custody?

 

[Wexford]

While we are talking suppression orders and misinformation....can I just throw the old question into the mix....why did every single MSM have WT's name spelled wrongly in the early days?? Sorry but that reeks to me.

 

[Bohemian]

The difference being that the children in the Spedding's care were not fostered. MS had custody of them, they are her grandchildren.

I see the difference in the point you are making, but I would have to do further investigation to see if the same types of rules apply. Whilst WT is in the care of the FP's, is he not considered to be in their custody?

Just looked through this subject. Children in out-of-home care seem to be the ultimate responsibility of the Director-General, NSW Department of FaCS. William's FPs had physical custody of him, yes. Check back through recent posts for my thoughts.

 

[sosocurious]

Child protection investigation and assessment.

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/documents/investigation_assessment.pdf

 

[Bohemian]

Child protection investigation and assessment.

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/documents/investigation_assessment.pdf

Therefore, your thoughts are that there may have been reports made to FaCS regarding the children living in the same residence as BS? Ties in with fact one(?) of the childrens' mothers freaked out in MSM. Can't seem to find that MSM newspaper article online anymore.

 

[perkerkel]

Don't feel lonely Bettie....I'm feeling the same way...I can't stand media sensationalism and especially not selling headlines by utilising peoples misery and fear. Having said that, obviously we all react differently to different stimuli. I get that when others see parents bereft it impacts hugely on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not immune, but I do wonder whether someone who would abduct or keep quiet about said abduction for this length of time would be swayed. If the FP are being threatened by the hierachy that to break fostering rules risks their custody of the sister then .... I just feel they have done and are doing everything within their power to find their boy.
:moo:
:facepalm:

I feel so lonely in my opinion that showing the parents' faces is unlikely to make a difference at this point, at least if their message so far has been correctly directed. It's clear from their words and actions how important this is to them, what exactly would be the course of action on their end or that of a lawyer's to bypass previously enacted legislation? Serious question.

And if it were to succeed, I can only imagine it being clickbait/TV revenue.. "The NEVER BEFORE SEEN parents speak! See it HERE FIRST!" and so forth.. it just sounds distracting and a bureaucratic waste at this point.
Especially since anybody who cares about William isn't sleeping or working very much while assisting in the search, or so I would imagine.

The most heartfelt pleas I've ever heard or seen probably came from Morgan Harrington's parents, and her killer was only caught years later because of another victim, Hannah Graham. The Harringtons, who remained MORE than fully visible in the media for years, described the look he gave them in court when they were finally able to face him as "evil." Which is what I think we're dealing with here, unfortunately.

I may just be seriously not understanding some media/legal/cryptic posting nuances, and I don't mean any offense by it.

 

[Bohemian]

We don't know who put the complaint in. My point about the suppression order is that the FP's identity is apparently suppressed to protect children in their care and yet the identity of BS was not suppressed when the children in their care would come under the same govt. dept. and would become easily identifiable in their community.

I seem to remember BS saying he would sue MSM over the reporting of him being a POI in relation to William's disappearance (bear with me have yet to find a link).

btw I didn't intend to be necessarily harsh in my answer to your post before the one above. I have since snipped it after a second reading. My apologies.

 

[sosocurious]

Therefore, your thoughts are that there may have been reports made to FaCS regarding the children? Ties in with fact one(?) of the childrens' mothers freaked out in MSM. Can't seem to find that MSM newspaper article online anymore.

I am just thinking that if a pedo ring had been being investigated for 16 months on the mid north coast and there had been 30 arrests ... then it just seems imo there would have been a referral or 2 concerning children at risk to the child protection authority.

Whether parents ....grandparent or any significant other had previously gone through the;
* family court to obtain parental responsibility ....
* obtained physical care of children via facs going to court and the director general obtained responsibility for the child. (foster)
* or even an informal arrangement. (no family courts or Docs involvement)

Do you need a check?

Authorised carers and their adult household members are required to obtain a Working With Children Check.

Any person over 18 who stays for three weeks or more in the home of an authorised carer, family day care educator or home-based education and care service provider must have a Check. If you stay regularly, but not full time (e.g. several nights a week) you will still require a Check.

I recall reading the minutes in the GAPA minutes (before they were pulled) and there was discussion about Working with children checks being undertaken .....

Mr Battishall said the men left GAPA as soon as members found out about the alleged assaults, which he said occurred before William disappeared.
He said every person who came to GAPA had to get a working with children check.
"You have to take their word for it," he said.
"And it is hard when this does come out.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/william-t...andparent-support-groups-20150905-gjfrug.html
IMO

 

[Makara]

It's a fine line here on what we can and can't discuss in regard to William's situation. Please keep the discussion general and not directed towards William's family and the grandchildren of MS. A general rule of thumb is if it has been reported in MSM, we can discuss it.

I personally think a discussion about fostering etc. is a good thing and may help all of us understand how the system works in a general sense without going into the real nitty gritty of William's case, which as we know, is under a suppression order and therefore has not been reported in MSM. Please use your discretion.

The following is from the Victorian State Government site but NSW would follow the same guidlines.

Adoption and permanent care - frequently asked questions
What’s the difference between permanent care, adoption and foster care?
Any child that comes into your family needs your love, care and protection.

However children in permanent care may need more of your time and input. In many cases they’ve grown up without the sense of security and stability that most of us take for granted.
These children are placed in permanent care only when the Department of Human Services makes a decision that they cannot return to their birth family. These decisions are only ever made in the best interests of the child. After a period of time, a permanent care order is made by the Children’s Court, granting custody and guardianship to the new family.
The relationship is secure, nurturing and, above all, permanent. It’s one in which parents make a lifelong commitment to a child.

Foster care is not intended to be permanent. Children are initially placed in foster care after they leave the care of their birth family. When children are placed in foster care, it is expected that they will return home. In some cases this does not happen, and a decision is made as to the best way to achieve a stable home for the child. The child may be placed in permanent care through the Adoption and Permanent Care program.

http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/for-indiv...and-permanent-care-frequently-asked-questions

 

[Eloise]

While we are talking suppression orders and misinformation....can I just throw the old question into the mix....why did every single MSM have WT's name spelled wrongly in the early days?? Sorry but that reeks to me.

It never really set of my hinky meter. Subeditors were the first to go a few years ago when the big media companies started to rationalise their online operations. Mistakes happen - a LOT. It's only misspelt by one letter.

 

[Amee]

New adoption laws, the first of their type in Australia, have been passed in NSW
26 Mar 2014

New adoption laws that mean children must be considered for adoption before being placed into temporary foster care, have been passed in NSW.

In the first legislation of its type to be passed in Australia, child protection authorities will now be required to investigate putting vulnerable children, aged under 18, up for adoption before the option of temporary fostering is considered.

The rule would apply only in cases where courts have ordered the child cannot return to his or her family until the age of 18.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/26/adoption-laws-give-children-stability

NSW will be the first state to actively encourage open adoption of children in the Out of Home Care System, but other states may follow.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-11-17/5086254

 

[Makara]

It never really set of my hinky meter. Subeditors were the first to go a few years ago when the big media companies started to rationalise their online operations. Mistakes happen - a LOT. It's only misspelt by one letter.

Yes I agree Eloise. Just another case of sloppy journalism.

 

[Makara]

New adoption laws, the first of their type in Australia, have been passed in NSW
26 Mar 2014

New adoption laws that mean children must be considered for adoption before being placed into temporary foster care, have been passed in NSW.

In the first legislation of its type to be passed in Australia, child protection authorities will now be required to investigate putting vulnerable children, aged under 18, up for adoption before the option of temporary fostering is considered.

The rule would apply only in cases where courts have ordered the child cannot return to his or her family until the age of 18.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/26/adoption-laws-give-children-stability

NSW will be the first state to actively encourage open adoption of children in the Out of Home Care System, but other states may follow.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-11-17/5086254

Thanks Amee. I remember discussing this way back in one of the threads. So the new NSW adoption law was passed in March of last year making it the most up-to-date law that we know of.

 

[JLZ]

Is this what everybody's thinking? We hypothesize that William and family were clients of a NSW government department. Suppose that before the disappearance, the department accidentally but culpably released information concerning him which could have contributed to an abduction. If that's eventually proven to be a fact, the consequences for the department would be much worse than if an abducted child happened irrelevantly to be its client.

Perhaps somebody here could say whether the visit to Kendall would have needed the department's approval. If so, how would approval have been communicated? What if it was accidentally sent to the wrong client? And what if that wrong client was somebody who, because of his history, should never have been in that role in the first place? I think the Department would be panicking and using all of its powers to prevent any mention of itself in relation to the case.

 

[sosocurious]

RESPONDING TO A CHILD WELLBEING CONCERN OR CHILD PROTECTION REPORT FLOWCHART

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/documents/responding_flowchart.pdf

Removal and Assumption of Care Flowchart
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/documents/removal_assumption_care_flowchart.pdf

 

[Karo]

They were travelling in the same state, no need to notify anyone unless there were special conditions.

 

[Makara]

Is this what everybody's thinking? We hypothesize that William and family were clients of a NSW government department. Suppose that before the disappearance, the department accidentally but culpably released information concerning him which could have contributed to an abduction. If that's eventually proven to be a fact, the consequences for the department would be much worse than if an abducted child happened irrelevantly to be its client.

Perhaps somebody here could say whether the visit to Kendall would have needed the department's approval. If so, how would approval have been communicated? What if it was accidentally sent to the wrong client? And what if that wrong client was somebody who, because of his history, should never have been in that role in the first place? I think the Department would be panicking and using all of its powers to prevent any mention of itself in relation to the case.

It's my understanding that department approval is not required if the child is travelling within the state they live in.