Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #77

[FromGermany1]

Sounds like the Youth Hope service was part of the Salvation Army. So the Salvation Army would have all the records. Which is likely why Ben Atwood does most of the talking.

"The Salvation Army’s now defunct Youth Hope service supervised William Tyrrell’s contact visits with his birth parents." Link

"2012-2013: Under the Salvation Army, the birth parents see William for one hour once every two months on visits supervised by Salvation Army Out of Home Care supervisor, Ben Atwood." Link

In which of these two organizations did the MFC become an important member?

 

[iiiii's]

In which of these two organizations did the MFC become an important member?

Neither that I'm aware, but he became an ambassador for Bravehearts.

 

[Nessie]

Doesn't make it okay.

No one said it did.

 

[SouthAussie]

No one said it did.

Actually it has been said that the police "have taken every step to do it right" (Link) and there are other similar comments.
Which seems to indicate that it was okay, and even right. Even though the child was assaulted again 9 months later.

IMO there are two parties at fault in the assault matters. The FM and the police. One for assaulting the child, the other (mandatory reporters) for doing nothing about it for 9/10 months.

 

[Couldbe]

JMO … and who would ever have guessed that, with a propensity to abuse young children in the name of ‘discipline’, the FM and FF had been behaving in that way?

In retrospect, it might have been a wise move for surveillance tapes, in their vehicle and house, to have been used longer term than just following an earlier Rosann interview back in 2016 …. thereby nipping in the bud what could have been going on. Maybe it wasn't or maybe it was.

I guess that it wasn’t until that young girl grew older and commenced trying to defend herself, that the ‘discipline methods’ brought out more anger from the FM and FF.
MOO

 

[bearbear]

i would like to know if other foster children were abused by the foster carers,
and if they were publicly identified, other bio parents and children would recognise them and come forward? it would show if there was a pattern of abuse over the years?
in my opinion their mo with william and his sister seemed to be to break them and over discipline, and im wondering if little william as a baby was just left to cry, traumatised and wanting his mother, and then treated harshly as a toddler so unable to bond with fm and she just ended up hating him and wishing she could give him back but not wanting to look like a failure, easier if he just "disappeared"

 

[FromGermany1]

i would like to know if other foster children were abused by the foster carers,
and if they were publicly identified, other bio parents and children would recognise them and come forward? it would show if there was a pattern of abuse over the years?
in my opinion their mo with william and his sister seemed to be to break them and over discipline, and im wondering if little william as a baby was just left to cry, traumatised and wanting his mother, and then treated harshly as a toddler so unable to bond with fm and she just ended up hating him and wishing she could give him back but not wanting to look like a failure, easier if he just "disappeared"

I believe, the bio parents of other children, who needed fostering, didn't know their name and didn't know, how they looked.
Wasn't it so, that FFC brought little W and his sister to the visits, but then she was hiding in the background somewhere? She would have known, how the bio parents looked, but not vice versa?

I may be wrong.

 

[bearbear]

I believe, the bio parents of other children, who needed fostering, didn't know their name and didn't know, how they looked.
Wasn't it so, that FFC brought little W and his sister to the visits, but then she was hiding in the background somewhere? She would have known, how the bio parents looked, but not vice versa?

I may be wrong.

yes i was wondering that too, but maybe if the children saw their faces on tv they may be able to recognize them? but more realistically im hoping police have access to the former foster childrens medical files and able to locate and interview them

 

[SouthAussie]

I guess that it wasn’t until that young girl grew older and commenced trying to defend herself, that the ‘discipline methods’ brought out more anger from the FM and FF.
MOO

It has been stated - by the prosecutors - that the child was misbehaving.

Prosecutors told the court that the child had been 'misbehaving… (over) a very long period of time'. Link


The magistrate said it was due to jealousy.

Mr Feather told the court it was a case where 'the child is misbehaving, the ten-year-old' and that a six-year-old had changed 'the dynamics in the family' causing 'a degree of jealousy in the child'.
He said this had caused 'problems in terms of parenting'. Link

 

[Couldbe]

It has been stated - by the prosecutors - that the child was misbehaving.

Prosecutors told the court that the child had been 'misbehaving… (over) a very long period of time'. Link


The magistrate said it was due to jealousy.

Mr Feather told the court it was a case where 'the child is misbehaving, the ten-year-old' and that a six-year-old had changed 'the dynamics in the family' causing 'a degree of jealousy in the child'.
He said this had caused 'problems in terms of parenting'. Link

At the time of your links (June 2023) I imagine the surveillance tapes had not been played in Court.

Last Hearing Magistrate Susan McIntyre had the surveillance tapes:
Tyrrell foster mum’s ‘putrid’ barb: court
“Other counts related to threats to “throw” and “slap” the child, and also threatened to have the child removed from the home, the court heard.

Magistrate Susan McIntyre said there was a “prima facie case” to answer on all the charges and it could be argued that all of the woman’s statements caused the child to fear mental or physical harm.
MOO

 

[suspicious]

Actually it has been said that the police "have taken every step to do it right" (Link) and there are other similar comments.
Which seems to indicate that it was okay, and even right. Even though the child was assaulted again 9 months later.

IMO,there are two parties at fault in the assault matters. The FM and the police. One for assaulting the child, the other (mandatory reporters) for doing nothing about it for 9/10 months.

yes, I have stated I think they have done the right thing.
Can you guarantee that the foster child would have been taken off the foster parents after the first incident if they went straight in? The police would have known what to do. They weren't sitting back laughing. They now have protected her from the <modsnip - namecalling>

If the police didn't do the covert operation, this child would still be receiving the abuse.

 

[SouthAussie]

yes, I have stated I think they have done the right thing.
Can you guarantee that the foster child would have been taken off the foster parents after the first incident if they went straight in? The police would have known what to do. They weren't sitting back laughing. They now have protected her from the <modsnip - namecalling>

If the police didn't do the covert operation, this child would still be receiving the abuse.

I find that a nonsensical assertion.

"Let's leave the child there to suffer further abuse, just in case they don't permanently remove her after one assault"
"Let's not warn DCJ of what is happening, let's not warn the FP to lay off"
"Let's not advise the PRE-TEEN child that she is to tell her teachers/police/case worker if this should happen again"
"We will just sit and listen to it all for 9 months before we tell DCJ."

The way to stop violence is intervention.

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Magistrate Susan McIntyre said there is prima facie case to answer (prima facie meaning at first glance).
Magistrate Peter Feather said virtually the same thing, that if he were to make a judgement that day it would be a CCO.

There is no difference in "narrative". Magistrate Feather heard the prosecution ... "the child had been misbehaving over a long time". (No kidding, the police listened to at least 9/10 months of it and did nothing.)

And he could see that the behaviour surrounded the presence in the home of a 6 year old child. Because he is allowed to see the full case. We are not.

 

[Shadow@light]

I find that a nonsensical assertion.

"Let's leave the child there to suffer further abuse, just in case they don't permanently remove her after one assault"
"Let's not warn DCJ of what is happening, let's not warn the FP to lay off"
"Let's not advise the PRE-TEEN child that she is to tell her teachers/police/case worker if this should happen again"
"We will just sit and listen to it all for 9 months before we tell DCJ."

The way to stop violence is intervention.

I agree with you South Aussie. They just sat on it for nine months.
Even television shows Ads, if you see violence step in speak out. Straight away speak up, not months later.

 

[drsleuth]

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 43B​

Failure to reduce or remove risk of child becoming victim of child abuse

43B Failure to reduce or remove risk of child becoming victim of child abuse​

(1) A person commits an offence if--

(a) the person is an adult who carries out work for an organisation, whether as an employee, contractor, volunteer or otherwise (a
"position holder" ), and

(b) the organisation is the employer of an adult worker who engages in child-related work, and

(c) there is a serious risk that the adult worker will commit a child abuse offence against a child who is, or may come, under the care, supervision or authority of the organisation, and

(d) the position holder knows that the risk exists, and

(e) the position holder, by reason of the person's position, has the power or responsibility to reduce or remove that risk, and

(f) the position holder negligently fails to reduce or remove that risk.

: Maximum penalty--Imprisonment for 2 years.

 

[Warshawski]

Actually it has been said that the police "have taken every step to do it right" (Link) and there are other similar comments.
Which seems to indicate that it was okay, and even right. Even though the child was assaulted again 9 months later.

IMO, there are two parties at fault in the assault matters. The FM and the police. One for assaulting the child, the other (mandatory reporters) for doing nothing about it for 9/10 months.

Do we know when it was that the Police first listened to these recordings & became aware of the ill-treatment of the child ?

 

[SouthAussie]

Do we know when it was that the Police first listened to these recordings & became aware of the ill-treatment of the child ?

At the NSWCC hearing, Lonergan said that they dd not inform DCJ about the January 2021 assault (wooden spoon incident) because they were monitoring the home and the children in it.

Police told William’s foster mother ‘we know where, we know how, we know why’

Detectives had a stark message for William Tyrrell’s foster mother. Questioned in a Sydney court about the conversation, they denied that they were deliberately lying.

www.smh.com.au

Monitoring involves paying close attention. It's a type of systematic observation, like the monitoring of criminals by the police. Kids who are up to something don’t like their parents’ monitoring their every move.
To monitor is to keep an eye on someone or something, often through recording devices. Monitoring, then, is the act of keeping tabs on others. Link

 

[Couldbe]

Do we know when it was that the Police first listened to these recordings & became aware of the ill-treatment of the child ?

JMO - I am assuming that the surveillance began when Laidlaw took over Rosann from Jubelin ... about mid 2019.

It would be useful for us to know exactly when the devices were installed and when they first listened to the recordings.
At the current time, there is no investigative focus into why Rosann didn't remove the young 11 year old sooner, so the focus remains on the ill-treatment of the child. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

JMO - I am assuming that the surveillance began when Laidlaw took over Rosann from Jubelin ... about mid 2019.

So, by this assumption, the ill treatment was not ongoing. It was for a specified period of time, commencing in Jan 2021.

It is useful to hear the words of the investigators (Lonergan) that they did not inform DCP of the Jan 2021 wooden spoon assault because they were monitoring the home and children. (Link provided multiple times)

Not checking the tapes every 9 months or so .... they were monitoring, keeping tabs on them, "watching" them.

 

[Couldbe]

So, by this assumption, the ill treatment was not ongoing. It was for a specified period of time, commencing in Jan 2021.

It is useful to hear the words of the investigators (Lonergan) that they did not inform DCP of the Jan 2021 wooden spoon assault because they were monitoring the home and children. (Link provided multiple times)

Not checking the tapes every 9 months or so .... they were monitoring, keeping tabs on them, "watching" them.

JMO - While you keep a focus as per your post above; Many of us maintain a focus on the Hearing still currently to be finalized .... Hence my post in reply to Warshawski:

Do we know when it was that the Police first listened to these recordings & became aware of the ill-treatment of the child ?

JMO - I am assuming that the surveillance began when Laidlaw took over Rosann from Jubelin ... about mid 2019.

It would be useful for us to know exactly when the devices were installed and when they first listened to the recordings.
At the current time, there is no investigative focus into why Rosann didn't remove the young 11 year old sooner, so the focus remains on the ill-treatment of the child. MOO

At the current time, there is no investigative focus into why Rosann didn't remove the young 11 year old sooner, so the focus remains on the ill-treatment of the child.