Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #32

[Violet77]

Hair has grown quite considerably. Perhaps the outfit was purchased earlier and given to William recently and that is what promoted him to favour all things spiderman.

I have a question. Is there such a thing or childrens doll named Little Tara from a childrens book or tv programne or whatever. Trying to work out why William's doll had that name.

That’s a possibility, I do recall the FM saying his hair grows very quickly though, & IMO it’s not a massive difference, hair cuts a usually scheduled between 6-8 weeks, so that gives an indications how it grows.

I am not aware of any children’s characters named Tara, but like another member posted, LT was the former owner of that doll, perhaps she gave it that name initially, maybe the name was given to the doll after a favored child/friend at daycare, my niece always attaches friends names to pets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

To those on here that don't think Govt. Depts. are corrupt. There are other articles concerning this kind of thing as well,
(quote)
Parents sue for $18m after babies taken

Figures released by the New South Wales Government show the number of babies taken from mothers by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) is on the rise.

In NSW, there has been a staggering 70 per cent rise in baby removals from maternity wards.

In 2007, 215 babies were taken by DoCS. In 2009, 363 babies were taken.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-12/parents-sue-for-18m-after-babies-taken/362062

 

[Hbayne]

To those on here that don't think Govt. Depts. are corrupt. There are other articles concerning this kind of thing as well,
(quote)
Parents sue for $18m after babies taken

Figures released by the New South Wales Government show the number of babies taken from mothers by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) is on the rise.

In NSW, there has been a staggering 70 per cent rise in baby removals from maternity wards.

In 2007, 215 babies were taken by DoCS. In 2009, 363 babies were taken.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-12/parents-sue-for-18m-after-babies-taken/362062

Those figures don’t surprise me with the rise and rise of the ice epidemic

 

[purpleandgreen]

And this has been going on for most of this thread. The ff are victims in this too. Devastated victims.

“I’m not apportioning blame on anyone but ff were responsible for Williams welfare” ???? You just did apportion blame

 

[purpleandgreen]

It is not up to me to say whether it's right or wrong though.
As i stated earlier she has been under enormous stress with her missing child feared dead. Or shouldn't she have any feelings about that? And her behaviour for spitting at a police person was because??? I am not saying what she did was right, but how do you get to determine if she is a good mother or not from one incident? No one is denying she has problems, but a missing child is probably very disturbing to any parent.

Oh I think there are a lot more than 1 incident on her rap sheet. IMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Those figures don’t surprise me with the rise and rise of the ice epidemic

The caseworkers themselves have a very tough job, with so little consideration and appreciation given to them. Trying to help the children, keep them safe, while facing resistance from parents and criticism from some members of the public, makes their job quite heartbreaking.



Caseworkers tell of heavy personal toll

FORMER community services workers have likened their jobs to fighting a war, saying high burnout rates and vacancies are inevitable without better supports in place.

Two women who have worked as caseworkers in NSW say it is ‘‘heartbreaking’’ to make life-changing decisions about families’ lives while knowing there are thousands more who will never be seen due to competing priorities and time pressures.

More than 9200 children identified as being in risk of significant harm in the Hunter New England region in 2013-14 were not assessed by a caseworker, according to official figures issued by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.

Another woman said there were more reports and more work than there were workers to respond and only the most serious cases could be allocated.

‘‘Terrible emotional trauma is involved and you end up taking on the emotional baggage of other people. You are going into this battlefield every day thinking, ‘Who am I going to get yelled at by today?’’’

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2895982/caseworkers-tell-of-heavy-personal-toll/

 

[JLZ]

It may be of note for members to know that FACS is governed by The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

This act sets out principles and laws that concern the children only.

Alana Pearl Smith was definitely flouting one of FACS laws, and FACS had every right - as well as the obligation - to try to enforce that law. (BBM)
Evidently, the ruling judge in the case decided that William had now become an exception to the law, as the judge considered that William is now likely deceased.





Legislative amendments ...

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/336191/legislation_factsheet.pdf

Thank you for the reference to the FACS Act.

FWIW, I believe I disagree with your reading of the court judgement, in particular as to whether APS was held to be flouting the law. Section 9 comes under the heading "Principles for the administration of Act"; the confidentiality subject is covered more fully in Section 105, under the heading "Publication of names and identifying information", and this section is what the original and appeal judgements focussed on. The primary judge held, and the appeal court agreed, that "no contravention of s 105 would be involved in merely disclosing that at the time of his disappearance Julian was under the parental responsibility of the Minister and/or in foster care. The proposed disclosure would thus not be unlawful, and would not infringe any justiciable legal right of Julian." This was not because "Julian" was likely deceased, but because Section 105 was an offence of strict liability, and "it obviously cannot have been the intention of the legislature to make it an offence simply to publish the name of a child who has been involved in relevant proceedings, although taken out of context and literally, the provision would admit such a construction." The issue of Julian being likely deceased was relevant to the ultimate discretionary decision of the courts to allow publication of his in-care status, but it was not relevant to whether APS had breached the Act. Actually I get the impression that the appeal court may have disagreed with the primary judge's discretionary decision there, but it was not their role to override that unless a mistake of principle had been made. (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5996755ce4b074a7c6e17e4c , especially paragraph 47)

I hesitated to go into this because it's really not relevant to finding William; happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Karinna]

Oh I think there are a lot more than 1 incident on her rap sheet. IMO

Yes in previous years and my post was in reply to another poster, in regard to her current status.

 

[Hbayne]

The caseworkers themselves have a very tough job, with so little consideration and appreciation given to them. Trying to help the children, keep them safe, while facing resistance from parents and criticism from some members of the public, makes their job quite heartbreaking.



Caseworkers tell of heavy personal toll

FORMER community services workers have likened their jobs to fighting a war, saying high burnout rates and vacancies are inevitable without better supports in place.

Two women who have worked as caseworkers in NSW say it is ‘‘heartbreaking’’ to make life-changing decisions about families’ lives while knowing there are thousands more who will never be seen due to competing priorities and time pressures.

More than 9200 children identified as being in risk of significant harm in the Hunter New England region in 2013-14 were not assessed by a caseworker, according to official figures issued by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.

Another woman said there were more reports and more work than there were workers to respond and only the most serious cases could be allocated.

‘‘Terrible emotional trauma is involved and you end up taking on the emotional baggage of other people. You are going into this battlefield every day thinking, ‘Who am I going to get yelled at by today?’’’

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2895982/caseworkers-tell-of-heavy-personal-toll/

Damnedif they do and damned if they don’t. I bet the same people full of so much contempt towards them would be the very first to condemn if they left a child in care that was later harmed.

 

[Karinna]

Thank you for the reference to the FACS Act.

FWIW, I believe I disagree with your reading of the court judgement, in particular as to whether APS was held to be flouting the law. Section 9 comes under the heading "Principles for the administration of Act"; the confidentiality subject is covered more fully in Section 105, under the heading "Publication of names and identifying information", and this section is what the original and appeal judgements focussed on. The primary judge held, and the appeal court agreed, that "no contravention of s 105 would be involved in merely disclosing that at the time of his disappearance Julian was under the parental responsibility of the Minister and/or in foster care. The proposed disclosure would thus not be unlawful, and would not infringe any justiciable legal right of Julian." This was not because "Julian" was likely deceased, but because Section 105 was an offence of strict liability, and "it obviously cannot have been the intention of the legislature to make it an offence simply to publish the name of a child who has been involved in relevant proceedings, although taken out of context and literally, the provision would admit such a construction." The issue of Julian being likely deceased was relevant to the ultimate discretionary decision of the courts to allow publication of his in-care status, but it was not relevant to whether APS had breached the Act. Actually I get the impression that the appeal court may have disagreed with the primary judge's discretionary decision there, but it was not their role to override that unless a mistake of principle had been made.

I hesitated to go into this because it's really not relevant to finding William; happy to agree to disagree.

That is fine, you are allowed to disagree all you want and i have my opinions too,

 

[purpleandgreen]

Documented cases, maybe. Could be lots of other things we don't know about. Like ongoing drug use (for anxiety of course). IMO

Yes in previous years and my post was in reply to another poster, in regard to her current status.

 

[SouthAussie]

Damnedif they do and damned if they don’t. I bet the same people full of so much contempt towards them would be the very first to condemn if they left a child in care that was later harmed.

I just find it frustrating that the whole picture is not looked at sometimes.

There are real people involved at every level of a child's removal and re-homing. As they say, the highest priorities are dealt with first and foremost. Many, many, many bad situations cannot even be looked at due to lack of resources.

Many of the people who have to deal with these bad situations are parents, too. They know what a child requires for a healthy life. They are not just blindly following rules and regs that have been put in place.

 

[Karinna]

Documented cases, maybe. Could be lots of other things we don't know about. Like ongoing drug use (for anxiety of course). IMO

Drug use in Australia is very prevalent, and a lot of young people and older people smoke MJ because it has a calming effect, and medical marijuana is also a drug of choice in countries O/S. Australia's laws in that respect are very draconian, although i believe MJ has been decriminalised in A.C.T. & S.A.
I can see why KT would think it helps with anxiety etc., but you have to be careful with what strain of it you smoke because sometimes it can make your condition worse.

 

[JLZ]

To those on here that don't think Govt. Depts. are corrupt. There are other articles concerning this kind of thing as well,
(quote)
Parents sue for $18m after babies taken

Figures released by the New South Wales Government show the number of babies taken from mothers by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) is on the rise.

In NSW, there has been a staggering 70 per cent rise in baby removals from maternity wards.

In 2007, 215 babies were taken by DoCS. In 2009, 363 babies were taken.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-12/parents-sue-for-18m-after-babies-taken/362062

I have some sympathy with your position there Karinna, but it seems to me pretty cheeky to accuse someone of flouting the law on the basis that you "imagine" the law to be such-and-such. Perhaps the department is following the law but the law is bad? Or perhaps the department is doing its best to follow the law but doesn't have the resources to do it well?

I have some experience battling government departments. It's terrifying and debilitating enough when it only concerns money, and I'm fortunate to have mental resources to take them on. Can't imagine the hell if it concerned one's children, especially for someone with minimal education.

 

[sosocurious]

Drug use in Australia is very prevalent, and a lot of young people and older people smoke MJ because it has a calming effect, and medical marijuana is also a drug of choice in countries O/S. Australia's laws in that respect are very draconian, although i believe MJ has been decriminalised in A.C.T. & S.A.
I can see why KT would think it helps with anxiety etc., but you have to be careful with what strain of it you smoke because sometimes it can make your condition worse.

You have to be very careful when you have 2 children in your care and 2 that are in foster care. To do all you can to not use any substance that is illegal in the state in which you reside.
All about personal choices.
Never mind worrying about what strain...imo

 

[Karinna]

I have some sympathy with your position there Karinna, but it seems to me pretty cheeky to accuse someone of flouting the law on the basis that you "imagine" the law to be such-and-such. Perhaps the department is following the law but the law is bad? Or perhaps the department is doing its best to follow the law but doesn't have the resources to do it well?

I have some experience battling government departments. It's terrifying and debilitating enough when it only concerns money, and I'm fortunate to have mental resources to take them on. Can't imagine the hell if it concerned one's children, especially for someone with minimal education.

IMO Govt.s wield too much power & control over our lives anyway.
Totally agree with your last sentence.

 

[purpleandgreen]

I just find it frustrating that the whole picture is not looked at sometimes.

There are real people involved at every level of a child's removal and re-homing. As they say, the highest priorities are dealt with first and foremost. Many, many, many bad situations cannot even be looked at due to lack of resources.

Many of the people who have to deal with these bad situations are parents, too. They know what a child requires for a healthy life. They are not just blindly following rules and regs that have been put in place.

Says it all really. So sad that there are little ones out there with dire needs who can't be helped due to lack of resources.

And agree re the big picture, SA. No place for one-eyedness when children's health and safety is concerned. Thank you for your wise, balanced posts that truly do focus on William and are based on facts as reported in MSM and not the notorious SM.

 

[Karinna]

You have to be very careful when you have 2 children in your care and 2 that are in foster care. To do all you can to not use any substance that is illegal in the state in which you reside.
All about personal choices.
Never mind worrying about what strain...imo

Correction, KT only has 1 child in foster care right now, unless you know something the rest of us don't?

 

[purpleandgreen]

Mere semantics, I suspect. Soso's meaning is clear. We all know she did have 2 children in foster care. Let's come together as a caring team and focus on the real issues, rather than point scoring.

Correction, KT only has 1 child in foster care right now, unless you know something the rest of us don't?

 

[Hbayne]

Mere semantics, I suspect. Soso's meaning is clear. We all know she did have 2 children in foster care. Let's come together as a caring team and focus on the real issues, rather than point scoring.

Exactly the words I was going to post.