Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #41

[purpleandgreen]

And I believe there is another media article that raised William's tendency to be hyperactive and the 3 caseworkers or care personnel were there to observe his behaviour in different circumstances.

Dear sweet William...So much turmoil in such a very short time. Very sad.

Do you have a link for that article, please pt? I don't recall seeing that one and am very interested.

Just thinking in general, it's sad how in utero effects can have such terrible long lasting effects in so many ways. IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

"Police have not drawn the positive conclusion that a known relative or associate was not involved in William's disappearance," Mr Craddock said.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...he-vanished-inquest-told-20190324-p51739.html

Ah yes a known relative or associate & that’s where I have that unshakable 6 degrees of separation but the immediate BF & FCers have been cleared.
IMO if our cops didn’t have an open mind on who took William we’d all still ONLY be looking at a washing machine man, the GAPA’s of the area or this world wide pedophile ring.
That’s still on the table but, unbeknownst to us, we now have some questionable neighbours.

 

[frogwell]

I hear you and I’ve always rattled on about that 6 degrees of separation but if I cast the net further with an open mind the chances of some random person stepping from a car or from behind a bush and grab a little two year old is easy to accept for me.
I must keep an open mind, like our wonderful cops, who also must keep an open mind because closed thoughts are missed opportunities. IMO.

My mind has been open to stranger abductions, pedo rings, familial abductions on both sides, misadventure etc. And so I am trying to let the details of the case that we know, not the spin interested parties want to put on the details as a guide to what may have happened to WT. There are details that keep bringing up question marks and GJ's rep. as the lead investigator has been put under question as reported in MSM. And the statement about not being able to clear a known relative or associate was some of the freshest, most up to date insight we had on this case, because that is currently the investigating teams view of the investigation. IMO

 

[sosocurious]

Ah yes a known relative or associate & that’s where I have that unshakable 6 degrees of separation but the immediate BF & FCers have been cleared.
IMO if our cops didn’t have an open mind on who took William we’d all still ONLY be looking at a washing machine man, the GAPA’s of the area or this world wide pedophile ring.
That’s still on the table but, unbeknownst to us, we now have some questionable neighbours.

Does a known relative mean known to the public?

 

[they'll get you]

Exactly , SA. I suspect facebook or other social media posts are being confused with MSM, and we know that the former aren't permitted here due to TOS, thankfully, as anyone can make up anything and post it there

IMO this is exactly what has been happening.

 

[SouthAussie]

Does a known relative mean known to the public?

Generally means known to the police. imo

For example, the Darwin shooter ... "known to the police" ... previous record.

 

[purpleandgreen]

It seems to me that whenever a piece of information is made available about WT's situation that may be perceived as negative, it cannot be examined. I find it offensive that more public scrutiny is placed on BP's who were proven to be hundreds of kilometres away and not the primary carers of this child for the last 2.5 years when he went missing. IMO

Yes it is unfortunate, froggy. And it's all thanks to APS, who went to court about it. If it hadn't been for her the whole can of worms opened up to the BP wouldn't have happened. It's a shame that people don't think ahead about possible consequences of their actions that they might be misguided in what they consider victories. The BF are sadly victims of that.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes it is unfortunate, froggy. And it's all thanks to APS, who went to court about it. If it hadn't been for her the whole can of worms opened up to the BP wouldn't have happened. It's a shame that people don't think ahead about possible consequences of their actions that they might be misguided in what they consider victories. The BF are sadly victims of that.

Not to mention the BGMA and her media appearances. I don't think that BD needed that kind of exposure about his habits and behaviour. It seems as though this event with William has broken him, something the whole country likely didn't need to hear if he has any chance of recovery and living a normal life with good job prospects.

 

[frogwell]

Yes it is unfortunate, froggy. And it's all thanks to APS, who went to court about it. If it hadn't been for her the whole can of worms opened up to the BP wouldn't have happened. It's a shame that people don't think ahead about possible consequences of their actions that they might be misguided in what they consider victories. The BF are sadly victims of that.

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified publically in the media even though identification may provide a breakthrough in a police investigation, due to the protection of the child? Is the child still under the care of the minister when adopted or are the adoptive parents granted full parental rights and responsibilities once granted like all other parents?

 

[they'll get you]

Does a known relative mean known to the public?

Yes <modsnip>


Here’s the MSM link.
Stunning new revelations about the day William Tyrrell vanished

 

[purpleandgreen]

Not to mention the BGMA and her media appearances. I don't think that BD needed that kind of exposure about his habits and behaviour. It seems as though this event with William has broken him, something the whole country likely didn't need to hear if he has any chance of recovery and living a normal life with good job prospects.

Yes he's definitely become a victim of it. IMO.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified in the media due to the protection of the child?

Well my knowledge of the law is limited in many ways, but yes, I believe the protection of the child supersedes identification ( but happy to be proven wrong). And rightly so, IMO

 

[they'll get you]

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified in the media due to the protection of the child?

The child in their care should be wrapped in cotton wool until they die.
What’s happened is not their fault although they may experience survivors guilt forever as did Daniel Morcombe’s brother who blamed himself and was known as Daniel’s brother.
Daniel Morcombe's identical twin brother, Bradley opens up in emotional 2011 interview

 

[sleepinoz]

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified publically in the media even though identification may provide a breakthrough in a police investigation, due to the protection of the child?

That's a good question Frog.

If you are asking in regards to a 'particular female child in care that has possibly been adopted', that child is also protected by the Coroner's NPO.

After that I'm not sure. I am interested to find the answer though, so will do a bit of research.

 

[sleepinoz]

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified publically in the media even though identification may provide a breakthrough in a police investigation, due to the protection of the child? Is the child still under the care of the minister when adopted or are the adoptive parents granted full parental rights and responsibilities once granted like all other parents?

That's a good question Frog.

If you are asking in regards to a 'particular female child in care that has possibly been adopted', that child is also protected by the Coroner's NPO.

After that I'm not sure. I am interested to find the answer though, so will do a bit of research.

From this section in the Adoption Act 2000 - I would say that they can't be identified.


180 Restriction on publication of material identifying persons affected by adoption application

(1) A person must not publish material that identifies, or is reasonably likely to identify, a person as a person affected by an adoption application.
Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) For the purposes of this section, each of the following persons is a person affected by an adopted application:
(a) a child in relation to whom an adoption application is made,
(b) a person who makes an adoption application,
(c) the mother and father of the child in relation to whom an adoption application is made, and any other person who has parental responsibility for the child when the adoption application is made.
(3) This section does not prohibit:
(a) the publication of any material with the authority of the Court under section 180A, or
(b) the publication of an official report of proceedings in the Court that includes the name of any person the publication of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(4) This section does not prohibit the publication of any material after an adoption application and any proceedings in the Court with respect to the application have been finally disposed of:
(a) if the person identified (or reasonably likely to be identified) as a person affected by the adoption application consents to being identified, and
(b) the material does not identify (and is not reasonably likely to identify) any person affected by the adoption application who does not consent to being identified.
(5) In subsection (4), a reference to the consent of a person affected by an adoption application is, if that person is a child less than 18 years of age, a reference to the consent of the person who has parental responsibility for the child.(6) In this section:
adoption application means an application under this Act or under a law of another State for an adoption order.


NSW Legislation

 

[SouthAussie]

Question, if a child has been adopted from foster care by the people who were fostering said child, are those adoptive parents still entitled to not be identified publically in the media even though identification may provide a breakthrough in a police investigation, due to the protection of the child? Is the child still under the care of the minister when adopted or are the adoptive parents granted full parental rights and responsibilities once granted like all other parents?

Good question. I am not able to find a definitive answer, although I have searched for a little while.

But I am wondering if the results and caselaw with regard to FaCS V Smith is still the legal position, until/unless something changes that.

I also notice that no parents of (other) adopted children are mentioned by name in the media, unless the parents/children have given their presumed consent - presumed because they are speaking about their lives as adoptive parents/children.

Perhaps parental/adult child consent is required? And/or perhaps FaCS consent is also required, due to the child initially being under the Minister's care until 18 years old?

 

[SouthAussie]

From this section in the Adoption Act 2000 - I would say that they can't be identified.


180 Restriction on publication of material identifying persons affected by adoption application

(1) A person must not publish material that identifies, or is reasonably likely to identify, a person as a person affected by an adoption application.
Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) For the purposes of this section, each of the following persons is a person affected by an adopted application:
(a) a child in relation to whom an adoption application is made,
(b) a person who makes an adoption application,
(c) the mother and father of the child in relation to whom an adoption application is made, and any other person who has parental responsibility for the child when the adoption application is made.
(3) This section does not prohibit:
(a) the publication of any material with the authority of the Court under section 180A, or
(b) the publication of an official report of proceedings in the Court that includes the name of any person the publication of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(4) This section does not prohibit the publication of any material after an adoption application and any proceedings in the Court with respect to the application have been finally disposed of:
(a) if the person identified (or reasonably likely to be identified) as a person affected by the adoption application consents to being identified, and
(b) the material does not identify (and is not reasonably likely to identify) any person affected by the adoption application who does not consent to being identified.
(5) In subsection (4), a reference to the consent of a person affected by an adoption application is, if that person is a child less than 18 years of age, a reference to the consent of the person who has parental responsibility for the child.(6) In this section:
adoption application means an application under this Act or under a law of another State for an adoption order.


NSW Legislation

Looks like you have found the answer right there, sleep. Good find.

 

[sleepinoz]

Looks like you have found the answer right there, sleep. Good find.

In addition to my post, they can be identified if they consent or a court gives permission. IMO.

 

[louisepiglet]

From this section in the Adoption Act 2000 - I would say that they can't be identified.


180 Restriction on publication of material identifying persons affected by adoption application

(1) A person must not publish material that identifies, or is reasonably likely to identify, a person as a person affected by an adoption application.
Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.
(2) For the purposes of this section, each of the following persons is a person affected by an adopted application:
(a) a child in relation to whom an adoption application is made,
(b) a person who makes an adoption application,
(c) the mother and father of the child in relation to whom an adoption application is made, and any other person who has parental responsibility for the child when the adoption application is made.
(3) This section does not prohibit:
(a) the publication of any material with the authority of the Court under section 180A, or
(b) the publication of an official report of proceedings in the Court that includes the name of any person the publication of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section.
(4) This section does not prohibit the publication of any material after an adoption application and any proceedings in the Court with respect to the application have been finally disposed of:
(a) if the person identified (or reasonably likely to be identified) as a person affected by the adoption application consents to being identified, and
(b) the material does not identify (and is not reasonably likely to identify) any person affected by the adoption application who does not consent to being identified.
(5) In subsection (4), a reference to the consent of a person affected by an adoption application is, if that person is a child less than 18 years of age, a reference to the consent of the person who has parental responsibility for the child.(6) In this section:
adoption application means an application under this Act or under a law of another State for an adoption order.
NSW Legislation

"Adoption application" is what is mentioned in this document. Does that mean the situation changes after the adoption is finalised?

 

[SouthAussie]

"Adoption application" is what is mentioned in this document. Does that mean the situation changes after the adoption is finalised?

I don't think so.

There is a whole bunch of info here about adoption, who can know, and how they go about it. It is a FaCS NSW document.

Finding information on past adoptions

It does seem that it is only birth relatives and adoptive parents/child who can apply for any details, such as the names of the adoptive parents and the adopted child, or details about the birth family.