Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #26

[sosocurious]

“That little boy was my life, we all adored him, he was a beautiful innocent little boy,” Ms Collins said.

Ms Collins said her son had been released from jail in March while William’s mother no longer spoke to her.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/2674faf90531f7b129d0212aa3153acf

 

[MzOpinion8d]

“That little boy was my life, we all adored him, he was a beautiful innocent little boy,” Ms Collins said.

Ms Collins said her son had been released from jail in March while William’s mother no longer spoke to her.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/2674faf90531f7b129d0212aa3153acf

Has it been explained why he wasn't placed with Mrs. Collins?

 

[sosocurious]

Has it been explained why he wasn't placed with Mrs. Collins?

No it doesn't.
That might be in the next media realise.

 

[sosocurious]

So the Dept took W4W to court to prevent them disclosing William's care status on the facebook page.
W4W took it up to FACS. They did that for KT. Also to push for an inquest.

KT does not speak to NC. If the media is correct KT is back with BC since his release from prison in March.

Does it seem as though the only person that is having anything to say to the media ........is still only NC ...

IMO.

 

[frogwell]

So the Dept took W4W to court to prevent them disclosing William's care status on the facebook page.
W4W took it up to FACS. They did that for KT. Also to push for an inquest.

KT does not speak to NC. If the media is correct KT is back with BC since his release from prison in March.

Does it seem as though the only person that is having anything to say to the media ........is still only NC ...

IMO.

Not sure what I base this on, but I don't think the younger 2 children are BC's and I don't think she is with him. MOO

 

[sosocurious]

Not sure what I base this on, but I don't think the younger 2 children are BC's and I don't think she is with him. MOO

Ditto

 

[jessie]

Hope this isn't O/T, but please could someone explain "The Minister" referred to in soso's post #684.

In the UK we have what are referred to as "Forced Adoptions" (see link, also wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_adoption_in_the_United_Kingdom)
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-real-story-behind-forced-adoptions-10408306.html

Would this be similar ? Apologies for asking, followed little William's case since the beginning but have little to contribute sadly.
TIA

 

[crabstick]

Great post.

I too think it is harsh to blame his foster mother. The details aren't 100% but it sounds like she perhaps thought granny had him in sight and maybe granny assumed William had followed her in (as it seems the sister needing the toilet was a detail at one point, along with the making of the cup of tea) ... I 100% believe that they didn't have him out of sights for long, children have come to harm in many similar circumstances with only a few minutes of accidental non-supervision. I have a few instances under my belt that could have gone a bad way and they make my blood run cold to recall them, and I would say I am a parent who is more anxious in this regard than normal.

We should be able leave our child 10 minutes down side the house without yhe child being abducted.
An older child wanting the toilet is a general priority.

We used to run the streets as kids even in the latter of sunset. The whole neighbourhood did.

I feel William was predated. Bordering on handcuffing the child to your arm...

From what we know publicly I have a feeling William was removed from family. The opportunistic window opened.

 

[deugirtni]

William arrived at the home of foster parents when he was 8 months old. The arrangement was intended to be permanent.

The baby boy had been removed from his biological parents — both of whom had encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.
Bio father - a career criminal incarcerated for most of Williams short life..

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e
William Tyrrell’s foster home intended to be permanent
AMY HARRIS, The Sunday Telegraph

William was known to the public as his foster parents surname.(which can't be disclosed) and not Tyrrell.
There is no suggestion that either of the bio parents were ever violent toward William. Though there has been some link to domestic violence since Williams removal.
Karlie was having infrequent supervised visits before William disappeared.

William was snatched while playing on grandmothers front lawn.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

From what I understand about FACs, is that nobody is expected to be permanent carers straight away. There are case managers to look over the adjustment period (of some time) and court then proceedings, before any "permanent" arrangement is made. I have a friend going through this for the past 5 years. It wasn't till about 2 years in - that any permanent arrangement was discussed and then initiated. I know it is different for each case, but the idea of a permanent arrangement straight off the bat, is just plain ludicrous

Not sure what I base this on, but I don't think the younger 2 children are BC's and I don't think she is with him. MOO

There is a photo showing BC with the KT's other children. That doesn't mean anything, but just saying. Also, didn't one of the news articles state that the two are now back together? Not that we can rely on MSM being accurate, by ANY means.

 

[crabstick]

The child was on his bike? Where was it discovered?

Edit: ok, so presuming there accuracy in Daily Telegraph, William was on front lawn.

Ok, Williams bio father stated as career criminal in public news

William removed at 8 months from bios. Not safe environment then

 

[deugirtni]

just wondering if the foster parents chose to remain anonymous or was it a facs ban on them being identified? i remember reading, or hearing on the tv interview with them, they stated they had chosen to remain anonymous,to (understandably) protect williams sister, and didnt williams playgroup/kindy have a gag order also?
right from the first day they had a family friend front the media, how was that implemented so fast?
but then there seems to have not really been any gag orders on williams bio family with his mother and grandmother public on facebook and msm interviews etc
i know the important thing here is finding william but feel if there had been transparency from the start more people would have come forward, too many coincidences and moments and coverups!

Your point, "right from the first day they had a family friend front the media, how was that implemented so fast?", is a good one.

If we think back to the very time when this was all unfolding.. police were called.. searchers were organized, MSM was present.. and yet even at that very early stage, it was the carers' name which was anonymous, while WT's name was outed (even though it is supposed to be the foster CHILD whose name is protected).

At that hectic first stage, who would be responsible for ensuring *their* (and *only* their) anonymity? FACS? I doubt it.

In my mind, the carers told the police right from the get-go that they did not want their names to be involved, and for whatever reason, the police went with that. Then FACS went with it, and the media had no choice but to go with it.

Now the media *continues* to go with it. They are now outting the bio parents (which, out of the two sets of parents, should be the ones to remain anonymous - those people did not even have the care or custody of the child at that time), but yet, they *still* refuse to publish the names of the people who had the custody and control of the child at the time when he *disappeared* into thin air??

And not only that, but like Frogwell mentioned, police are *adamant* that none of the families had anything to do with this crime, even though the outcome is not known, nor proven in a court of law yet. This whole case is just bizarre. IMO, of course.

From the Appeal Court's decision (BBM) (which I can't even believe the FACS would take it to this level, JUST to protect the carers' names! - remember that WT's name is already out there!!!!):

His Honour was not persuaded that disclosure of Julian’s status would hinder the police investigation and gave a number of reasons why he found the opinion and reasoning of the Det Chief Inspector unconvincing (at [54]):

In particular, it does not explain why it was decided at the outset not to reveal Julian’s status, beyond that the strategy took into account the views of FACS; nor why it was decided to allow the carers to be represented as Julian’s parents; in the absence of any such explanation I can only infer that it was not for some strategic purpose associated with the investigation. While there are vague general suggestions that release of the information could be used to achieve strategic objectives, the evidence does not illuminate how it might do so, and I have not been able to imagine a way in which it would. The notion that the efforts of trained and experienced police investigators might be distracted – presumably by an influx of pseudo-information in the nature of rumour and speculation – is quite unconvincing.

His Honour further found that the fact that Julian disappeared while he was in the parental responsibility of the Minister, and in the care of Departmentally-approved carers, is a matter of legitimate public interest: at [83]

His Honour found that the stated concerns of the carers, though no doubt genuinely held, overstated the significance of disclosure of Julian’s in-care status.

… Julian has been missing – presumably abducted – for some years. Foremost of Julian's interests in the present circumstances is being found. If publication of information about Julian’s in-care status were likely to be of any assistance in the investigation, that would be practically decisive of the application: Julian’s interest in being found would outweigh any potential for later stigma arising from disclosure of Julian’s status, if it were likely somehow to enhance the prospects of his being found.

60. No specific error is alleged in relation to this finding....

61. One further matter should be mentioned. There is no merit in the Secretary’s complaint that his Honour erred in holding that, as Julian would have to cope with other significant difficulties if found alive, the additional detriment he would suffer by being known as a child in care would “add little” or be “somewhat marginal”. The Secretary acknowledged so much below when his counsel accepted that if Julian is found, “the fact that he may or may not have been identified as being in foster [care] is going to be the least of his concerns”. The Secretary adhered to that concession in this Court. It was well open to his Honour to find (at [55]):

...... if found, Julian will not easily be able to escape exposure to attention and comment. Being known to be a child in-care will add little. This reduces its significance, as Hale LJ indicated in Re S: at [59]:

Conclusion and Orders
65. As the proposed grounds of appeal do not identify any respect in which the primary judge was arguably wrong in dismissing the Secretary’s application for injunctive relief, the application for leave to appeal should be refused. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005 (NSW), r 42.1.
66. I propose the following orders:
1. Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal.
2. Order the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs of that summons.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c

 

[deugirtni]

Originally Posted by sosocurious

[82] the interests of the carers are relevant only to the extent that they may have implications for julian or his sister sarah.[/i] while the welfare of sarah is relevant – and while it is possible that an order might be made for her protection, prohibiting publication of information that might lead to her identification as julian’s sister – no such order is sought,and the indirect connection between the proposed disclosure of julian’s status and her is insufficient to support the injunction that is sought.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decis...b074a7c6e17e4c

??? Bubm

Doesn't that kinda say it all?

 

[deugirtni]

So the Dept took W4W to court to prevent them disclosing William's care status on the facebook page.
W4W took it up to FACS. They did that for KT. Also to push for an inquest.

KT does not speak to NC. If the media is correct KT is back with BC since his release from prison in March.

Does it seem as though the only person that is having anything to say to the media ........is still only NC ...

IMO.

I'd guess that the FP are also speaking to the media, although it is not announced. I noticed in the article by Amy that there is no reference to where she received her information. She lists as facts, those which are her opinions. Her writing seems very slanted in favor of the FF, while it seems almost vengeful toward the bios. This case just gets weirder every day, imho.

-"WHEN an eight-month-old William Tyrrell arrived at the home of his new foster parents, it was an arrangement that was always intended to be permanent." - who says that it was always intended to be permanent? Amy the reporter?
-"His biological father was a career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated." - in whose opinion was the bio father a career criminal? Amy the reporter?
-"Karlie Tyrrell was aware that William’s foster care was meant to be a permanent arrangement." - did KT tell the reporter this, or did someone else? There is no reference.
-"It is understood his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.
However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him." - why bring this up, especially since these events occurred AFTER WT was 'removed from their care'? Does Amy the reporter have a problem with the bio family? If so, why? If not, why not back up her report with facts? It has now been disclosed that the child was in care - does that mean it should also be announced as to *why*?? Is it not more important to say in whose custody and control the child was, on the day he disappeared? I'm just not getting it.
-"However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not “Tyrrell”." - how does Amy the reporter know about this? Is she quoting someone but without a reference? Why would the FF refer to WT by something other than his name? The FACS, the bios, the govt, any schools/preschools, would all know WT by his *real* name.. so who exactly is Amy referring to? The FF's friends and relatives and neighbours?
-"William Tyrrell's parents view pictures of their missing son in an appeal for his safety last year." - why is Amy the reporter still showing pictures of the FF and calling them the 'parents', even when the court of appeal has questioned why this was allowed or done in the first place? Later she even states: "“Moreover, the truth has, to date, been obscured: the public has admittedly been given to think that (his) carers are his parents.
“There is a substantial public interest in accountability and scrutiny of the out-of-home care system, and in accuracy of reportage of the circumstances of his disappearance,” he said."
-"The new revelations come as the identity of Karlie Tyrrell has been revealed in the wake of a ruling by the NSW Supreme Court which has allowed the fact that William was in foster care to be disclosed for the first time." - why reveal KT, but yet not the FF? The court did not distinguish that one could be identified and the other could not? Is there some kind of prejudice involved here?
-"The ruling was made just over two years after his shocking kidnapping from a mid-north coast home during what was a visit to his foster grandmother." - Wasn't it just under three years? Or has this issue been going on for a year in the appeal court, trying to reverse the initial decision?
-The investigation into his disappearance is “very much ongoing”, according to police, but neither his foster family nor his biological parents are suspected of any involvement. William’s grandmother has since moved." - is this Amy's opinion, or did someone tell her this, and if so, why has she not referenced it, as reporter's normally do when they state 'facts'?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

I'm just so disgusted. MOO.

 

[Wexford]

Your point, "right from the first day they had a family friend front the media, how was that implemented so fast?", is a good one.

If we think back to the very time when this was all unfolding.. police were called.. searchers were organized, MSM was present.. and yet even at that very early stage, it was the carers' name which was anonymous, while WT's name was outed (even though it is supposed to be the foster CHILD whose name is protected).

At that hectic first stage, who would be responsible for ensuring *their* (and *only* their) anonymity? FACS? I doubt it.

In my mind, the carers told the police right from the get-go that they did not want their names to be involved, and for whatever reason, the police went with that. Then FACS went with it, and the media had no choice but to go with it.

Now the media *continues* to go with it. They are now outting the bio parents (which, out of the two sets of parents, should be the ones to remain anonymous - those people did not even have the care or custody of the child at that time), but yet, they *still* refuse to publish the names of the people who had the custody and control of the child at the time when he *disappeared* into thin air??

And not only that, but like Frogwell mentioned, police are *adamant* that none of the families had anything to do with this crime, even though the outcome is not known, nor proven in a court of law yet. This whole case is just bizarre. IMO, of course.

From the Appeal Court's decision (BBM) (which I can't even believe the FACS would take it to this level, JUST to protect the carers' names! - remember that WT's name is already out there!!!!):

















https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c

This part has always bothered me a lot. I can only assume someone at the time William went missing was not emotionally attached and managed to advise them to keep out of the media and keep their names (and their faces) out. It's the immediateness that bothers me most.

 

[SouthAussie]

I did some googling on the subject of leaving a small child alone outside, and came across quite a few forums that discuss this. It seems that many people do it, and many people don't do it. The ones that do it justify their stance by saying that they live in a quiet cul-de-sac, they live in a rural area, they know all the neighbours and the neighbours know them, the children all look out for each other, etc. etc.

RSBM

The FP's would not have been able to claim any of those underlined justifications in this instance.They didn't live in the quiet cul-de-sac, WT went missing from, or live ruraly, they didn't know all the neighbors and vice versa and the only other kid to look out for him was his 4 year old sister.

I recall them saying that William knew his boundaries and would not have just wandered off. That is the similarity that I was referring to, in my post.

 

[Wexford]

BBM

While William may have been known by his foster parents last name (to make things easier in their community, to help keep his foster care privacy intact), his legal name would still be Tyrrell .... until/if any adoption took place.
I can understand a report to police using his legal name, as it is an official entity.

I think the foster parents are intelligent people, and understand when to use his legal name and when to use their own surname for day to day practicality and privacy.


The 000 call recording ...
[video=youtube;augkwdaYOx8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=augkwdaYOx8[/video]

Has this been edited before going public? It seems to have vital info that emergency services would require missing from it.

 

[SouthAussie]

Has this been edited before going public? It seems to have vital info that emergency services would require missing from it.

Yes, I suspect it was edited. The house number is not mentioned in the recording, and yet I think it must have been said as the 000 operator was able to pinpoint the closest cross-street to the house.

 

[deugirtni]

This part has always bothered me a lot. I can only assume someone at the time William went missing was not emotionally attached and managed to advise them to keep out of the media and keep their names (and their faces) out. It's the immediateness that bothers me most.

But in a free society, who gets to NOT have their names published, when they had responsibility for the care and control of a 3 year old child who mysteriously disappears into thin air?

 

[SouthAussie]

THE biological grandmother of missing toddler William Tyrrell has hit out at the social workers who took him away from his parents as a baby and placed him in foster care.

Heartbroken Natalie Collins, 57, yesterday revealed her son Brendan Collins’ criminal past, drinking problems and rows with William’s mother Karlie Tyrrell. However, she said their behaviour was not enough to put the little boy who was “adored” by his family into care.

William Tyrrell: Missing toddler’s grandmother slams social workers
DANIELLE GUSMAROLI, The Daily Telegraph
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/2674faf90531f7b129d0212aa3153acf

Makes me wonder who turned them in to FACS in the first place, possibly for a dangerous place for the children to grow up in.

I think one of the articles mentioned both biological parents having some difficulties with the law (?) so maybe it was a case of both parents being taken into custody at some point, in which case FACS would have been called.

Then, of course, FACS would have looked to close relatives to place the children with. Ms Collins may not have measured up, for the long haul.

 

[SouthAussie]

But in a free society, who gets to NOT have their names published, when they had responsibility for the care and control of a 3 year old child who mysteriously disappears into thin air?

We live in far more of a nanny state than Canada or the US. Many things do not get published here. Like the names and criminal details of pedos who harm our children.

"Somebody" makes the decision not to publish, and that is that.