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

[frogwell]

So the sister was removed before William was born.
Coming to the current foster carers a week after William, which would have been Feb/Mar 2012 if William was 7 months.
I wonder if that first placement was with kin?

Says he was removed at 7 months and placed with foster carers.?.

 

[Bohemian]

So the sister was removed before William was born.
Coming to the current foster carers a week after William, which would have been Feb/Mar 2012 if William was 7 months.
I wonder if that first placement was with kin?

Ir's a possibility, I suppose. Good luck to anyone who can ferret out that information and link it here in accordance with WS' TOS — especially now there are proceedings underway in the NSW Children's Court.

 

[frogwell]

I thought the proceedings were done in a 4 day hearing in December last year.

 

[Wexford]

Ah, thank you.
Hope that she is not inadvertently mirroring her own situation on William and his sister, as that does not seem at all to be the case. William looks so happy in all his photos. Not a shadow of any grief or abuse showing in his bright, happy eyes.

Evidently she is not too fond of FACS.

Well it appears she does have a history with them and I fully understand that motivation. Read some of the info on The Little Girl that Nobody Wanted and you will get some idea of another person's experience in the foster system who has now become a campaigner: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pledges-fix-fails-hundreds-children-day.html

APS asks the question at the beginning of this story 'what is it about this little boy that the department of FACCS have found that they need to work so diligently to cover up'? She says that very carefully and clearly which makes me think she possibly knows the answer (or thinks she knows it) and that it needs to be answered.
I have to agree that it is a good question and so far the answers I have heard publicly are not really enough to threaten legal action to keep journalists quiet....all of them. And still even now the names have not been mentioned despite the court order being lifted.
Whilst I agree this is not likely to help find William, it is of concern to me that this has been so carefully and cleverly hushed up. And it makes you wonder, not just in this case, but in other cases, what other information is able to be hushed up? What are we not being told? These are children. Real children. And I agree, they all matter.

 

[Bohemian]

I thought the proceedings were done in a 4 day hearing in December last year.

Yep froggy:

'[...] The proceedings were to be heard from 6 December 2016 over four days; whether that hearing proceeded and if so its outcome is not known to me [...]'

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9​

An initial hearing? There's always the possibility that there hasn't been any decision made. Soso no doubt has a link to the relevant flowchart.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well it appears she does have a history with them and I fully understand that motivation. Read some of the info on The Little Girl that Nobody Wanted and you will get some idea of another person's experience in the foster system who has now become a campaigner: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pledges-fix-fails-hundreds-children-day.html

APS asks the question at the beginning of this story 'what is it about this little boy that the department of FACCS have found that they need to work so diligently to cover up'? She says that very carefully and clearly which makes me think she possibly knows the answer (or thinks she knows it) and that it needs to be answered.
I have to agree that it is a good question and so far the answers I have heard publicly are not really enough to threaten legal action to keep journalists quiet....all of them. And still even now the names have not been mentioned despite the court order being lifted.
Whilst I agree this is not likely to help find William, it is of concern to me that this has been so carefully and cleverly hushed up. And it makes you wonder, not just in this case, but in other cases, what other information is able to be hushed up? What are we not being told? These are children. Real children. And I agree, they all matter.

Defiinitely read the full judgement, Wexford. It is worth the read, and explains a lot. How a 'cover up' is not limited to William and his sister. But how these privacy laws and guidelines have been developed over many years. Primarily due to potential (and researched, well-documented) stigmatisation of the children.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

 

[SouthAussie]

Says he was removed at 7 months and placed with foster carers.?.

Some articles explain it differently.

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.

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.

His biological father was a *career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated.

It is understood William’s *foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern *suburbs was intended to be a *permanent arrangement.

His biological mother was aware of the intention.

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

 

[iailwa]

Some good points in your original post.

While we are re-thinking things..... here is something that bothers me.

The timeline and appointment of BS's supposed visit/appointment has seemingly been left very vague. Considering he was allowed to be placed right in the spotlight and exposed.

I find this quite frustrating.

I remember this forum joined the dots. There was an article that randomly mentioned a workers car similar to his still in the street after the initial search was quieting down. But somehow it feels like those dots were too easily connected.

The timeline for BS to visit the house, or even a potential earlier visit, isn't clearly laid out.

Not defending the guy, just think it has been unhelpful for a giant amount of media noise to be allowed to hog the headlines. Especially when every other possibility has been locked down.

yes, so true. In a way i guess the media is helpful very, very early - before they get whacked with suppression orders and such...?

 

[sosocurious]

Some articles explain it differently.

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.

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.

His biological father was a *career criminal who had spent most of William’s short life incarcerated.

It is understood William’s *foster agreement with his new parents in Sydney’s northern *suburbs was intended to be a *permanent arrangement.

His biological mother was aware of the intention.

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

their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.

Care plans are living documents that should be reviewed and can be altered at any time....imo

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

 

[frogwell]

their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.

Care plans a living document that should be reviewed and can be altered at any time....imo

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

At the time the above judgement was handed down in January 2017, the FP's had applied in the children's court to become WT's sister's sole guardians until she is 18 and KT had applied for restoration. The Supreme court judge did not know if those proceedings had taken place or what the outcome of thewas.

 

[SouthAussie]

their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.

Care plans are living documents that should be reviewed and can be altered at any time....imo

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

And perhaps William spent the first month (at 7 months old) at the home of (other) fosters parents who take babies in under emergency situations.

I have read of these types of foster parents ... just cannot find a link at the moment. They conduct the initial care of a baby, until another more permanent placement can be found (or until things calm down at home and the baby can return there).

 

[Jennifer17]

Well it appears she does have a history with them and I fully understand that motivation. Read some of the info on The Little Girl that Nobody Wanted and you will get some idea of another person's experience in the foster system who has now become a campaigner: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pledges-fix-fails-hundreds-children-day.html

APS asks the question at the beginning of this story 'what is it about this little boy that the department of FACCS have found that they need to work so diligently to cover up'? She says that very carefully and clearly which makes me think she possibly knows the answer (or thinks she knows it) and that it needs to be answered.
I have to agree that it is a good question and so far the answers I have heard publicly are not really enough to threaten legal action to keep journalists quiet....all of them. And still even now the names have not been mentioned despite the court order being lifted.
Whilst I agree this is not likely to help find William, it is of concern to me that this has been so carefully and cleverly hushed up. And it makes you wonder, not just in this case, but in other cases, what other information is able to be hushed up? What are we not being told? These are children. Real children. And I agree, they all matter.

Do you think it could be because they are relatives of the bio mother? or father?

 

[SouthAussie]

Interesting ... seems that in NSW, 'at risk' babies are given 6 months with their mother/parents, to see if they can straighten up. I wonder if this is why William was removed at 7 months old.

Also, not saying that there was a drug addiction involved, but in this article I read ...
(link - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e) .... it says that the domestic violence started (or was reported?) after William was removed.



BBM

For children under two, the birth parents will be given six months, and if the child is over two years old, the birth parents will be given 12 months to prove they can be good parents.

‘We talk a lot about the rights of parents: this is actually about the rights of children. We should be putting children at the centre of what we are doing here,’ she said.

‘Yes, six months for a woman who has a serious drug addiction and a serious history of domestic violence is not a lot of time, but if you are removing a child that early you can be sure there has been prior history and our commitment is to work as hard as we can with that mother to enable her to address the issues that stop that child from having a safe life.

‘For every day that you leave a child in a home where there is serious drug addiction, there’s needles on the floor, there is poo in the corner, there is nothing in the fridge, the child is filthy, the milk gets adulterated, there is a prospect that the child takes the heroin and the domestic violence is a horrendous factor for a child to see between its parents or between its mother and the new boyfriend, every day you leave a child like that you damage that child.’

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

 

[sosocurious]

And perhaps William spent the first month (at 7 months old) at the home of (other) fosters parents who take babies in under emergency situations.

I have read of these types of foster parents ... just cannot find a link at the moment. They conduct the initial care of a baby, until another more permanent placement can be found (or until things calm down at home and the baby can return there).

Emergency care – 12 hours onwards
Emergency carers provide a safe, supportive home for children and young people when there are immediate concerns for their safety and they must be moved quickly. Placements are arranged at short notice, often after-hours or on weekends, and can last from several hours to a few months

Interim or restoration care – up to 12 months
Restoration and interim carers support vulnerable families by fostering children while their parents receive the help needed to ensure they can safely look after their child in the future. These carers also foster children while they’re waiting to go to an adoptive parent or into long-term foster care.

Guardianship – up to 18-years-old
Guardianship is a court order that allows a child or young person to be cared for by a relative or adult they know until the child turns 18. A guardianship order allows a child to maintain contact with their birth family while the child lives in the supportive home of their guardian. While the order ceases when the child is 18, the relationship with the guardian is expected to be lifelong.

http://www.fosteringnsw.com.au/short-mid-long-term-care-options/

I guess the assessment process would take a few months, at least.
imo

 

[Bohemian]

Do you think it could be because they are relatives of the bio mother? or father?

Who are 'they'? The FP's? No indication that they are related that I've seen or can link here.

 

[Bohemian]

Excuse me but what an absolute cluster****. I always said this was 'Alice Through The Looking Glass' stuff. The sad thing about this case is that it involves a little boy being taken from his home and his sister (not to mention the possibility of other siblings) being alienated from their brother. i have no words.

 

[Jennifer17]

Who are 'they'? The FP's? No indication that they are related that I've seen or can link here.

Yes, the FPs. We have no indication of who they are or if they were related.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Sorry for being dim, Bo, but what are you referring to here?

Excuse me but what an absolute cluster****. I always said this was 'Alice Through The Looking Glass' stuff. The sad thing about this case is that it involves a little boy being taken from his home and his sister (not to mention the possibility of other siblings) being alienated from their brother. i have no words.

 

[SouthAussie]

Excuse me but what an absolute cluster****. I always said this was 'Alice Through The Looking Glass' stuff. The sad thing about this case is that it involves a little boy being taken from his home and his sister (not to mention the possibility of other siblings) being alienated from their brother. i have no words.

It is quite sad that the court case even happened. It has opened the door to all kinds of conversation about the circumstances of William (and his sister's) removal, why it happened, what will happen next, etc etc. (Talking primarily about on SM.)

It has replaced the public focus of finding William. Not sure how it has helped that at all. :thinking:
Any petition to call for a Coroners Inquiry did not need the foster care detail. And won't change the proceedings anyway. imo

It has become a focus on FACS.

Could this be the motivation, as you were questioning before?

.

 

[iailwa]

Can anyone say anything about TJ now, in relation to this case? I didn't quite get whether he was discounted or not?Here's an old article about him & PB
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...t/news-story/6610a00c1351596a4da67013a34ec23a

cheers!