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

[frogwell]

I think there would be policy with police and carers, that if they were called in on an issue with a foster child, they would inform FACS asap. I seem to remember it being reported in the 1st couple of days that FACS were also present. MOO

 

[deugirtni]

I think there would be policy with police and carers, that if they were called in on an issue with a foster child, they would inform FACS asap. I seem to remember it being reported in the 1st couple of days that FACS were also present. MOO

Yes, for sure they were involved early on, but not as 000 was being dialled. For all of their concern about the law and how it relates to the nondisclosure of a foster child's identity/circumstances, FM was sure quick to out *his* name, while hers has remained anonymous in MSM for almost 3 years now... and even now, when it has been ruled not confidential, that name is still being protected. One day, one of the MSM will publish it. Hopefully by then, people may still be able to recall anything they may have seen, heard, etc... would be nice to have that added piece to the pie examined, imo.

 

[Wexford]

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.

bbm
Maybe they looked at her associates then?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/295f4d26d06a4b543a3eec6d9d2f8953
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...other-faced-arrest-warrant-court-no-show.html

 

[frogwell]

I think the 000 call is heavily edited. You have to make a choice at the beginning of an emergency call, and then you are put through to that service. The person who answered the FM's call did not put her through to the police, the same voice dealt with the whole interaction. It is not unfeasable to me that the Tyrrell name given for William might have been edited into the phonecall for the public's consumption. They have not minded leaving the public with the impression that the carers were his parents so I think when the 000 call was released anything was possible.MOO

 

[bearbear]

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

i agree and have always thought it was an edited version or a re enacted version, she never mentions the cars when asked and sounds very calm, and calls william tyrrell which seems odd she doesnt mention their surname given to him also

 

[frogwell]

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c
The primary judge’s reasons

[85] For those reasons, the application for an injunction should be dismissed, and the interlocutory injunction should be discharged. However, it is appropriate to defer the discharge of the interlocutory injunction, to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to consider these reasons and, if so desired, to apply for the continuation of the interlocutory injunction pending any appeal; and otherwise to allow the Minister, the carers and the police an opportunity to be briefed and to put in place strategies in preparation for the impending disclosure.

I found this interesting, that when the Supreme court Judge made the ruling, he factored in time for the Minister, police and carers to put in place strategies if needed for the disclosure of WT's status. I wonder which journo's they have had on side to get their point of view across. The Daily telegraph and Channel 9, seem to have had access to indsider information from the police and NC's perspective for quite some time. I don't know why NC keeps talking to both those media outlets unless they are paying her. I often feel like the police are setting her up through both these outlets to look questionable. MOO

 

[ozazure]

She doesn't have to lie to maintain her end of the deal about not publicising his foster status, foster carers use the childs' legal name. You don't go into witness protection when you get a foster child, obviously there is the expectation that people in your life will understand this is a foster situation, and you can use two last names without drama. What you can't do is disclose information about the specific circumstances nor are you expected to be forthcoming in situations the information is not warranted. So the officials at daycare or school would likely know because there is information in the enrollment forms soliciting information about custody arrangements, for the childs' safety. Teachers would likely be told. I think the laws are designed so the poor kids aren't plopped into newsletters like "Please welcome Johnny Smith, he is being fostered by the Johnson's" etc, or in the local news "Foster kid Sam takes best and fairest in under 10s" or foster parents aren't plastering them on FB with details about their family of origin, it's not secret like classified blueprints.

The foster parents would know they need to disclose it and the police would know it has legal ramifications. My guess is the decision to err on the side of caution by not revealing the foster parents was taken quickly and then adhered to going forward, right or wrong, pragmatically, legally or morally.

I think this has added to the stigma of fostering in many ways. It is like the old days when people were not told they were adopted and it was a closely guarded family secret. It has stripped the rights of his biological parents, who hadn't yet legally lost their links to William. In theory it prevented the foster parents from straightforward public appeals, although it appears this has been to their preference in the long run - or maybe they just towed the party line to keep FACS happy, who knows.

 

[bearbear]

but the fps still had public fb pages open at the beginning, and wasnt it fm who went on fb explaining/defending the early photo released taken at playgroup where william had a bruise? they were still on sm, and not totally anonymous so why on that very painful first day did they decide not to face the media and plead for williams return,
why were key people cleared so quickly?
i read ages ago, it may be rumour, the family priest/minister had decided to remain anonymous also, but got me wondering if a church person often visited gma? or was visiting on the day?
just so many questions!

 

[sleepinoz]

but the fps still had public fb pages open at the beginning, and wasnt it fm who went on fb explaining/defending the early photo released taken at playgroup where william had a bruise? they were still on sm, and not totally anonymous so why on that very painful first day did they decide not to face the media and plead for williams return,
why were key people cleared so quickly?
i read ages ago, it may be rumour, the family priest/minister had decided to remain anonymous also, but got me wondering if a church person often visited gma? or was visiting on the day?
just so many questions!

It was Bio mum that commented on FB about the daycare photo

 

[deugirtni]

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c
The primary judge’s reasons

[85] For those reasons, the application for an injunction should be dismissed, and the interlocutory injunction should be discharged. However, it is appropriate to defer the discharge of the interlocutory injunction, to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to consider these reasons and, if so desired, to apply for the continuation of the interlocutory injunction pending any appeal; and otherwise to allow the Minister, the carers and the police an opportunity to be briefed and to put in place strategies in preparation for the impending disclosure.

I found this interesting, that when the Supreme court Judge made the ruling, he factored in time for the Minister, police and carers to put in place strategies if needed for the disclosure of WT's status. I wonder which journo's they have had on side to get their point of view across. The Daily telegraph and Channel 9, seem to have had access to indsider information from the police and NC's perspective for quite some time. I don't know why NC keeps talking to both those media outlets unless they are paying her. I often feel like the police are setting her up through both these outlets to look questionable. MOO

I hate to even consider that the police are playing puppetmaster and controlling things so that they *appear* a certain way, while other things are completely off limits, which actually should be considered. Whatever happened to good old fashioned police work where they follow the evidence to lead them to the conclusion, rather than determining the conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit the theory?

 

[JLZ]

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

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

If there was sufficient cause for FACS to remove William, "rows" and "drinking problems" are presumably minimizing language for domestic abuse by the father. The fact that NC thinks an abusive relationship was a safe environment to raise children in my opinion would disqualify her as a potential carer. And it seems at least questionable whether she was able to maintain safe boundaries as against her son; to protect herself where necessary, let alone restrict/regulate his control over his own children.

 

[bearbear]

It was Bio mum that commented on FB about the daycare photo

ok, thats right, so she must have had a reasonable relationship with the fps to step forward at the time with an explanation for the bruise which happened while he was in foster care, he does look so loved and happy in all his photos

 

[deugirtni]

If there was sufficient cause for FACS to remove William, "rows" and "drinking problems" are presumably minimizing language for domestic abuse by the father. The fact that NC thinks an abusive relationship was a safe environment to raise children in my opinion would disqualify her as a potential carer. And it seems at least questionable whether she was able to maintain safe boundaries as against her son; to protect herself where necessary, let alone restrict/regulate his control over his own children.

But in reality, what does Natalie's suitability as the carer of her grandchildren have to do with this missing child case? And police state 'distraction' as a 'reason' for why it had never been disclosed that the child was in fostercare when he disappeared. And now look? The news finally breaks that the child was in care at the time of his disappearance, and what are we talking about?

Instead of this news opening up a potential door to learn more details and potentially gather more evidence, we are instead talking, and the news is now talking, and naming, what is wrong with the bio family, what possible reasons there were 2.5 years prior to WT's disappearance for why he was taken into care, who initiated him being taken into care, why the paternal grandparent wasn't a suitable candidate for fostering her own grandchild, whether or not the bio parents are actually back together now, what kind of addiction and criminal activities the bio parents may have been participating in over the years, both before and after WT's removal from their home, and etc. Talk about a distraction? And talk about a puppetmaster?

The whole focus of this ruling, was that the majority of the interested population now knows that the people caring for WT on that fateful morning, were people unknown, people who have not even *still* been named. All this time, the majority have believed what they have been led to believe, that WT went missing from his bio family's care. That is huge for them to now discover different details, which were felt SO important to continue to cover up, that they took it to the supreme court of the land. I wonder how much that cost taxpayers - between police, FACS, and the courts, to have to deal with this detail which was felt to be SO important to hide? And now it appears they have got MSM wrapped around their finger in still continuing to report the FPs as the parents, name the bios but yet not the FPs, bring out all the dirty laundry about the bios, and etc. - distraction indeed.

I really really hope that that persevering, persistent woman who did not back down with threats of lawsuits and even appeals, follows through with her quest for a Coronial Inquest, and succeeds in this case.

 

[Wexford]

But in reality, what does Natalie's suitability as the carer of her grandchildren have to do with this missing child case? And police state 'distraction' as a 'reason' for why it had never been disclosed that the child was in fostercare when he disappeared. And now look? The news finally breaks that the child was in care at the time of his disappearance, and what are we talking about?

Instead of this news opening up a potential door to learn more details and potentially gather more evidence, we are instead talking, and the news is now talking, and naming, what is wrong with the bio family, what possible reasons there were 2.5 years prior to WT's disappearance for why he was taken into care, who initiated him being taken into care, why the paternal grandparent wasn't a suitable candidate for fostering her own grandchild, whether or not the bio parents are actually back together now, what kind of addiction and criminal activities the bio parents may have been participating in over the years, both before and after WT's removal from their home, and etc. Talk about a distraction? And talk about a puppetmaster?

The whole focus of this ruling, was that the majority of the interested population now knows that the people caring for WT on that fateful morning, were people unknown, people who have not even *still* been named. All this time, the majority have believed what they have been led to believe, that WT went missing from his bio family's care. That is huge for them to now discover different details, which were felt SO important to continue to cover up, that they took it to the supreme court of the land. I wonder how much that cost taxpayers - between police, FACS, and the courts, to have to deal with this detail which was felt to be SO important to hide? And now it appears they have got MSM wrapped around their finger in still continuing to report the FPs as the parents, name the bios but yet not the FPs, bring out all the dirty laundry about the bios, and etc. - distraction indeed.

I really really hope that that persevering, persistent woman who did not back down with threats of lawsuits and even appeals, follows through with her quest for a Coronial Inquest, and succeeds in this case.

Great post. I would very much like to know the answer to the question of why they are still not named because I don't believe for a second MSM 'choose' to do that. And if that info is still being withheld for whatever reason.....what else? Obviously something because it seems Ms Smith is still pursuing info that has not been released.

 

[iailwa]

Hi all. I was reading over some initial media coverage of the case in it's first week/s. It's interesting how some of the details released then kinda fell out of the loop over time. Like, a truck driver saw a black Camry SUV a few times that morning in the vicinity. I know this is off topic, but some of the initial stuff may have been suppressed by the police afterward. I can't help but wonder. There is little info about the cars seen in the vicinity (now), but initially, there was info released to the public ad hoc by the media, as you'd expect. You'd think a truck driver would know the make and model of a car, but a Camry is also very similar to a Jeep Lerado, or anything else you can think of? Just sayin' - maybe some of you are car enthusiasts? Also, the tennis club was initially of prime interest - presumably from passing vehicles on CCTV. Just throwing this stuff out there. Also, the well dressed/spoken guy asking directions, I think that was at the general store (specifically). It's so good that there is continual interest in William's case. It seems the police have discounted his biological parents, and his foster parents, and they obviously don't have any real evidence re BS or other known (to us) POIs, as there has been no arrest. Was it a crime of opportunity? Could this car have anything to do with it? It's interesting the police say the the sign about william on the tree stump is just a game, when the gamers say they left the jar there when before the sign was written. anyway...a very confusing case to say the least!

 

[frogwell]

If there was sufficient cause for FACS to remove William, "rows" and "drinking problems" are presumably minimizing language for domestic abuse by the father. The fact that NC thinks an abusive relationship was a safe environment to raise children in my opinion would disqualify her as a potential carer. And it seems at least questionable whether she was able to maintain safe boundaries as against her son; to protect herself where necessary, let alone restrict/regulate his control over his own children.

And why do we know this stuff about NC?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...other-faced-arrest-warrant-court-no-show.html

EXCLUSIVE: Grandmother of missing boy William Tyrrell wanted by police - after 'fight with toddler's abusive uncle where he spat in her face'
An arrest warrant was this year issued for grandmother of William Tyrrell
Was not related to the disappearance of the missing toddler two years ago
She was a witness to an incident involving her son 'spitting in her face'
Mitchell allegedly damaged the walls of her home and intimidated her
Ms Collins failed to appear in court after 'missing the letter'
By DANIEL PIOTROWSKI FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 15:39 +11:00, 7 November 2016 | UPDATED: 17:51 +11:00, 7 November 2016



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rest-warrant-court-no-show.html#ixzz4r181Z700
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



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

Factual background
Orders to that effect were made ex parte by the primary judge on 2 September 2016 until 7 September 2016 when the summons was first returnable. The orders were continued, on an interlocutory basis, until the hearing on 15 November 2016. On that date, his Honour continued the interim injunction until the delivery of his judgment, which was reserved.

On 23 January 2017, his Honour dismissed the Secretary’s application for a permanent injunction and discharged the existing interlocutory injunction, to take effect from 6 February 2017.

Date of Decision:
23 January 2017


I remember wondering why they were publishing this article about NC. Maybe it was a part of the Ministers or Police's preparation for the lifting of the injunction which they may have thought was imminent? MOO

 

[Bohemian]

I wonder if one, or both, of William's biological parents will speak to MSM now that they have been publicly identified?

 

[sosocurious]

I wonder if one, or both, of William's biological parents will speak to MSM now that they have been publicly identified?

No mention of bio grandfather/s Bo. :thinking:

 

[frogwell]

I wonder if one, or both, of William's biological parents will speak to MSM now that they have been publicly identified?

Is there a bidding war going on at present?

 

[frogwell]

No mention of bio grandfather/s Bo. :thinking:

Karlie's side have been silent too.