Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #27

[Bohemian]

This article speaks of your question, Bohemian, though it gives no indication of why.


Friends said Ms Tyrrell is not ready to speak about William's disappearance.

Ms Tyrrell said her friend's response was 'nice', telling them she plans to keep quiet about her son's disappearance - even joking she will stay silent 'unless Eminem raps my life story'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rrell-s-mother-Karlie-pictured-stays-mum.html

I read that article SA. I'm not questioning why William's biological mother doesn't want to divulge her personal history, or that of her children, as they have a right to privacy.

Can anyone think of, or reference, a legal reason why William's biological mother is unable to make a public appeal for information irt William's disappearance after the decision by the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal?

 

[Karinna]

It's a line from the film The Blues Brothers. Referring to both types of music. Or dogs in this case. Funny.

Oh haha, thanks for clarifying what was said,

 

[sosocurious]

This article speaks of your question, Bohemian, though it gives no indication of why.


Friends said Ms Tyrrell is not ready to speak about William's disappearance.

Ms Tyrrell said her friend's response was 'nice', telling them she plans to keep quiet about her son's disappearance - even joking she will stay silent 'unless Eminem raps my life story'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rrell-s-mother-Karlie-pictured-stays-mum.html

Do we really need to know she bought a can of drink and have a snap of her holding it?

 

[Bohemian]

Do we really need to know she bought a can of drink and have a snap of her holding it?

No we don't and we wouldn't have seen it but for William's biological mother being named in SM and MSM.

 

[Karinna]

I hope we all realise that William was not removed from his biological home because the mother was young and inexperienced, with little support. There are thousands of young, inexperienced, unsupported mothers out there that still have custody of all their children. Have not even been thought about to have their children removed.

It is one thing having empathy for her now. She seems to have turned things around. And good on her. I couldn't be more pleased about that.

But it is another thing to think that the state would remove a child because the mother is young and experienced, with little support. The state gives opportunity after opportunity, offers assistance, offers classes, offers counselling, offers respite care, (all of which the taxpayer pays for) ... before they finally remove a child ... if they remove the child. Sometimes they don't even do that. Look at the case of Chloe Valentine.

Heck, caseworkers themselves have been known to remove piles of garbage from houses, clean up, put food in the fridge, just to try to give the little munchkins a chance and show an active example to the mothers. Because they must give the mothers many opportunities, even though every instinct in them is telling them to take the child away. (Again, look at Chloe Valentine's case.)

I don't know how things work in other countries. But this is how it works in Australia.

.

Unless you are one of the unlucky ones targeted by those services. There are some real dreadful stories out there of children being forcefully removed from homes they never should of been removed from. And back in 2011-12 the Govt. knew about the corruption in the department and wilfully ignored it. So sometimes everything is not as it seems, especially if you have been a victim of this type of corruption. In this case i have no idea, but if a bio parent wants and is able to take a child back home then every effort should be made to transition that child back her family. All IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

I read that article SA. I'm not questioning why William's biological mother doesn't want to divulge her personal history, or that of her children, as they have a right to privacy.

Can anyone think of, or reference, a legal reason why William's biological mother is unable to make a public appeal for information irt William's disappearance after the decision by the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal?

I don't get it either.

The article says that she is not ready to speak of William's disappearance. Does not actually mention anything about speaking of her personal history, or that of her children. That is none of our business, and is probably completely against FACS laws. Plus we would only get one side of the story, which would possibly not be fair or entirely accurate.

 

[Bohemian]

I don't get it either.

The article says that she is not ready to speak of William's disappearance. Does not actually mention anything about speaking of her personal history, or that of her children. That is none of our business, and is probably completely against FACS laws. Plus we would only get one side of the story, which would possibly not be fair or entirely accurate.

I know that it doesn't mention those things other than William's biological mother's reference to '[her] life'. I respect William's biological parents' and his siblings' right to privacy and what anonymity they have left, as I do that of William's foster parents.

Surely there isn't a legal impediment to William's biological mother (or father, for that matter) making appeals for information irt William's disappearance, such as William's biological grandmother did?

 

[SouthAussie]

Here is a beautiful article about a lovely young couple who provide respite care to a young child. They are respite foster carers.

Also in the article it states ...

There are about 20,000 children in out-of-home care in NSW and a chronic shortage of carers.

The Association of Children's Welfare Agencies estimates an extra 660 foster carers are needed in NSW over the next 12 months to meet demand.

"We need to attract people with a strong desire to support children to return home to their birth families, as well as those who wish to take the more permanent step towards open adoption or guardianship."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hundreds-...-vulnerable-kids-in-care-20170907-gycioq.html

I wonder how many long-term carers they would attract if every child who is removed from their home on a long-term basis, due to chronic and sustained abuse/neglect/danger, was to be transitioned back to the birth parents at some far away point in the future when the birth parents had decided to straighten up?

This is a very difficult thing, and the best thing for the child must be top consideration. There is no reason the child cannot sustain an ongoing relationship with their birth parents, in a safe environment. As William apparently did. This way the child gets the best of both worlds. A loving, safe home to grow up in. And an ongoing relationship with the birth parents.

When the child is an adult in 18 short years (and possibly before that, is it 12, 16, 18 that they can decide?), they will decide for themselves the level of contact they want with each parent.


ETA: So much for my last word on the subject. lol I just feel so passionately that every child deserves a safe, nurturing, childhood, right from the get-go. The parents wants come secondary to me. Do the right thing by your children, and they will always be at your side.

 

[JLZ]

Possibly the reason the foster parents want to conceal their identities is that they believe they and "Sarah" could be at risk of violence from followers of the (biological) parents' rights movement.

 

[Karinna]

Here is a beautiful article about a lovely young couple who provide respite care to a young child. They are respite foster carers.

Also in the article it states ...



I wonder how many long-term carers they would attract if every child who is removed from their home on a long-term basis, due to chronic and sustained abuse/neglect/danger, was to be transitioned back to the birth parents at some far away point in the future when the birth parents had decided to straighten up?

This is a very difficult thing, and the best thing for the child must be top consideration. There is no reason the child cannot sustain an ongoing relationship with their birth parents, in a safe environment. As William apparently did. This way the child gets the best of both worlds. A loving, safe home to grow up in. And an ongoing relationship with the birth parents.

When the child is an adult in 18 short years (and possibly before that, is it 12, 16, 18 that they can decide?), they will decide for themselves the level of contact they want with each parent.


ETA: So much for my last word on the subject. lol I just feel so passionately that every child deserves a safe, nurturing, childhood, right from the get-go. The parents wants come secondary to me. Do the right thing by your children, and they will always be at your side.

I agree a child's needs should always take priority. I also think that society has become a more complex issue than it used to be. And as far as the having and raising of children there are no easy answers when children are taken into state care. Those children can grow up with all kinds of emotional issues in regard to their birth parents of not loving them enough or wanting them. A fostered/adopted child as they grow up are more likely to commit suicide than children that have been raised by their own parents. There are never any easy answers to such situations, and it is very sad for kids IMO.

 

[tiddles24]

I have to admit that it really sparks my ire when I read stuff like that which is quoted above 'dragged on for more than eight years before its biggest breakthrough'

First, there were at least 2 detectives who had their sights on the killer and recommended he be further investigated.. and second, if only someone had bothered to complete and/or check on the DNA testing that had been ordered. Would that perhaps have sped up the process by say, eight years?

"DNA samples taken from the car belonging to Daniel Morcombe's killer were not examined for eight years, a coronial inquest into the schoolboy's disappearance has heard.

"Inspector Darren Pobar, a forensics expert with the Queensland Police told the inquest fingerprint, blood and hair samples were taken from Brett Peter Cowan's car in 2003, but were not examined until 2011."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...rder-evidence-ignored-for-eight-years/8122904

Just don't get me started on Daniel Morcombe's murder case and all the mistakes made re sloppy police work.

Daniel disappeared in 2003 and his case is not over yet (14 years later) as the Assistant Commissioner is being investigated over the case re vital information not being heard at the inquest. He was the leading investigator from the beginning when Daniel first disappeared.

The Morcombes and their lawyer pushed for the Coronial Inquest. It is my firm belief that Daniel would never have been found as "they" said they would never give up in finding Daniel (and they didn't).

I am getting tired of reading about what great work the police did in the Brett Cowan sting. It only happened because of the Morcombes and their lawyer's persistance in pushing tooth and nail for that Coronial Inquest and they should be recognised for the important part they played in finding Daniel.

After 3 years, I'm a little disappointed in DCI Gary Jubelin's latest presser in that he is still asking for the public's help to come forward with any information they may have which could be vital in William's disappearance and the Reward of $1 million that no-one has claimed yet.

I'm afraid I didn't learn anything new from that presser and also we knew from social media that William was a foster child from the time he disappeared. There just doesn't seem to be anything that we didn't already know because of what appeared in social media at the time William disappeared...MOO

 

[tiddles24]

I have to admit that it really sparks my ire when I read stuff like that which is quoted above 'dragged on for more than eight years before its biggest breakthrough'

First, there were at least 2 detectives who had their sights on the killer and recommended he be further investigated.. and second, if only someone had bothered to complete and/or check on the DNA testing that had been ordered. Would that perhaps have sped up the process by say, eight years?

"DNA samples taken from the car belonging to Daniel Morcombe's killer were not examined for eight years, a coronial inquest into the schoolboy's disappearance has heard.

"Inspector Darren Pobar, a forensics expert with the Queensland Police told the inquest fingerprint, blood and hair samples were taken from Brett Peter Cowan's car in 2003, but were not examined until 2011."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...rder-evidence-ignored-for-eight-years/8122904

...........:goodpost:.....Spot On !!!...:cheer:

 

[iailwa]

I agree a child's needs should always take priority. I also think that society has become a more complex issue than it used to be. And as far as the having and raising of children there are no easy answers when children are taken into state care. Those children can grow up with all kinds of emotional issues in regard to their birth parents of not loving them enough or wanting them. A fostered/adopted child as they grow up are more likely to commit suicide than children that have been raised by their own parents. There are never any easy answers to such situations, and it is very sad for kids IMO.

Yes it's all very complex. It's not always the bio parents fault too. A friend of mine fosters a girl who's mother had a car accident, which unfortunately left her with some degree of brain damage. Before the accident she was doing fine as a single mother, but now she can't count money or make decisions, so they had to take her daughter away. Sad

 

[deugirtni]

I hope we all realise that William was not removed from his biological home because the mother was young and inexperienced, with little support. There are thousands of young, inexperienced, unsupported mothers out there that still have custody of all their children. Have not even been thought about to have their children removed.

It is one thing having empathy for her now. She seems to have turned things around. And good on her. I couldn't be more pleased about that.

But it is another thing to think that the state would remove a child because the mother is young and experienced, with little support. The state gives opportunity after opportunity, offers assistance, offers classes, offers counselling, offers respite care, (all of which the taxpayer pays for) ... before they finally remove a child ... if they remove the child. Sometimes they don't even do that. Look at the case of Chloe Valentine.

Heck, caseworkers themselves have been known to remove piles of garbage from houses, clean up, put food in the fridge, just to try to give the little munchkins a chance and show an active example to the mothers. Because they must give the mothers many opportunities, even though every instinct in them is telling them to take the child away. (Again, look at Chloe Valentine's case.)

I don't know how things work in other countries. But this is how it works in Australia..

Just for reference.. no, that is not what I said, nor what I am thinking. I'm sure the state had reason to take the child/children, when they did so.

 

[deugirtni]

Just to add to my above post ^^^^ ... when a child gives birth to a child, things don't always fare well for the baby. And in this case, there was a span of some years between the removal of two children. Which is an indication that even as the mother-child grew up, the dangerous/neglectful behaviour did not change. At least, until more recently.

For which two children in this case was there a span of some years between their individual removals? It has been stated in MSM that the girl is only 1 year older than WT. I have not read anything to say the date when the girl was taken into care, only that she was in care prior to WT being placed with the FF at 7 months of age, and that she then joined him there. Imo, all of KT's children are rather close in age. Yet she was allowed to parent the two that came after WT. At that time of their births, the risk must have already been gone, otherwise they would have had to have been removed as well.

 

[Karinna]

Yes it's all very complex. It's not always the bio parents fault too. A friend of mine fosters a girl who's mother had a car accident, which unfortunately left her with some degree of brain damage. Before the accident she was doing fine as a single mother, but now she can't count money or make decisions, so they had to take her daughter away. Sad

That is a very sad situation. And it's true we never know what this life will hand us. Tragedy strikes often. The removing of children from their natural parent/s should always be a very last resort. In KT's case from what we have read WT's bio dad has problems with drugs & alcohol. And consequently i would think the theft issues. There was mention that the T children were not physically abused. The dad has been in and out of jail, as people that are caught doing drugs can be incarcerated.
There are many young people out there that also have those issues, but their children don't get removed from them permanently. But as others have said it's none of our business, but it does make me wonder who's call that really was.
Getting children back out of state care through the courts can be a real nightmare too from what i know of that situation. And as i have said earlier there is always a certain amount of corruption in Govt. departments, so there is that too.

 

[deugirtni]

I appreciate you taking the time to reply although surely none of the conditions you assume to impact upon William's biological mother would preclude her from making a public appeal for information about her missing son, even if it were simply a statement written in conjunction with NSW Police?

Call me opinionated, but it is my belief that she is scared, alone, and lacking the legal smarts and significant financial means required to deal with this effectively, especially considering who she may be up against. I have sensed in this case that the powers behind the scenes, whomever they might be, are strong and intimidating, even for the media. Here we have the FF following the public FB groups and posting comments as WT's parents, even now that the public knows the boy also has a bio mom who is also grieving. This has become extremely messy, imho, because of the big lie that has now become publicly outted. But instead of facing the music, clearing the air, and putting the facts out there, for me, there is a sense of, 'let's now out the bio family and justify why the FF ever got the care of WT in the first place'.. rather than a sense of, 'thank God we're all on the same page now, let's all work together, tell the facts, make our pleas together to try to get someone to come forward'.. I just think something really stinks in this case.

 

[deugirtni]

I don't get it either.

The article says that she is not ready to speak of William's disappearance. Does not actually mention anything about speaking of her personal history, or that of her children. That is none of our business, and is probably completely against FACS laws. Plus we would only get one side of the story, which would possibly not be fair or entirely accurate.

So far, it seems to me that we already have only been getting one side of the story. If I was feeling scared and intimidated and at risk of potentially losing more of my children, whether real or imagined, and I was fighting to get back custody of my firstborn, I wouldn't feel ready to speak of WT's disappearance either, because my thoughts on his disappearance may not be what FACS and the FF and the police and whomever else, would want to necessarily be hearing. What she may be thinking, or have to say, may turn out to be detrimental to her cause. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I know that she has kept silent on things that she likely felt like screaming about, based on things I have read over time, from her. (Remember that we sleuthers knew this big secret years ago). It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out, for sure.

 

[Bohemian]

Call me opinionated, but it is my belief that she is scared, alone, and lacking the legal smarts and significant financial means required to deal with this effectively, especially considering who she may be up against. I have sensed in this case that the powers behind the scenes, whomever they might be, are strong and intimidating, even for the media. Here we have the FF following the public FB groups and posting comments as WT's parents, even now that the public knows the boy also has a bio mom who is also grieving. This has become extremely messy, imho, because of the big lie that has now become publicly outted. But instead of facing the music, clearing the air, and putting the facts out there, for me, there is a sense of, 'let's now out the bio family and justify why the FF ever got the care of WT in the first place'.. rather than a sense of, 'thank God we're all on the same page now, let's all work together, tell the facts, make our pleas together to try to get someone to come forward'.. I just think something really stinks in this case.

I'm asking why William's biological mother (or father, for that matter) would be prevented from making an appeal for information about their missing son, given that the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal has allowed SM and, by extension, MSM to divulge that William was in foster care when he disappeared.*

[*In fact, more information that William's foster care status was divulged via those channels, ie; the name of William's biological mother was posted on SM and reported in MSM, as was the name of William's biological father reported in MSM.]

 

[Karinna]

I'm asking why William's biological mother (or father, for that matter) would be prevented from making an appeal for information about their missing son, given that the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal has allowed SM and, by extension, MSM to divulge that William was in foster care when he disappeared.*

[*In fact, more information that William's foster care status was divulged via those channels, ie; the name of William's biological mother was posted on SM and reported in MSM, as was the name of William's biological father reported in MSM.]

And that is all the Supreme court has allowed is in regard to William's status being that he was in the FACS system as a fostered child.
I don't think we can really know the answer to your question as to what is preventing WT's bio parents to make any appeals to the public? There could be a very valid reason for it but we are not privy to that information.