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

[Hbayne]

WILLIAM TYRRELL’S FOSTER HOME INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT
AMY HARRIS, The Sunday Telegraph
August 27, 2017 12:00am

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

'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 his biological father and mother, Karlie, whose name was released this week after a ruling in the NSW Supreme Court, have been linked to domestic violence-related incidents.

However, these occurred after William had been removed from their care and there is no suggestion either were ever violent towards him.

'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.

Before his disappearance in September 2014, William did have supervised visits with his mother, contrary to some media reports.

However it’s understood these visits were infrequent and that William identified his foster family as his parents and was known to the public by their surname (which can’t be disclosed) and not "Tyrrell".'

'We will never stop looking for you': William Tyrrell's foster parents cling to hope he'll be found

Source: AAP - SBS Wires
12 SEP - 6:48 AM UPDATED 12 SEP - 10:25 AM

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...am-tyrrells-foster-parents-cling-hope-hell-be

'William's in-care status was only made public last month after the NSW Department of Family and Community Services lost a legal bid to stop an advocacy group using the information in pushes for a coronial inquest.

Senior police insist the investigation is "very much ongoing" and a $1 million reward for information leading to his return remains on offer.

Detective Chief Inspector Gary Jubelin, who leads the homicide investigation, will speak publicly about the case on Tuesday after last month reiterating his defence of the foster family, saying they'd provided "a loving home" for William.

The identity of William's biological parents, Karlie Tyrrell and Brendan Collins, was revealed only after the recent case - where the Court of Appeal upheld a Supreme Court ruling citing public interest and the need for scrutiny of the out-of-home care system in allowing more to be publicly known.

Those court documents paint a picture of the life of a boy who was given a fresh start after being removed from the care of his biological mother as a seven-month-old.

There were concerns about domestic violence and drug use in the home and William, the second-eldest of four children, was placed with a Sydney family.

He was reunited with his older sister a week later and the pair settled into their new family after the Children's Court found there was no "realistic" possibility of them returning to their birth mother.'

No realistic possibility of returning to birth mother.
That's a big call, it must have been a pretty dire situation William and his sister were in

 

[Wexford]

No realistic possibility of returning to birth mother.
That's a big call, it must have been a pretty dire situation William and his sister were in

Massive. How very sad.

 

[Bohemian]

Massive. How very sad.

Tragic, for all concerned. For William, his siblings, biological family and foster family as well as their friends, communities, preschool/school, emergency and counselling services, searchers, and everyone who has an ounce of empathy for that little boy. The person or persons who took William have a lot to answer for. And, as I've said before, whoever is keeping the secret about who took William that day is diabolical.

 

[Karinna]

No realistic possibility of returning to birth mother.
That's a big call, it must have been a pretty dire situation William and his sister were in

BBM,At that particular point in time that is. The BM is seeking restoration with her little girl.
(quote)
Restoration

Where parents and/or caregivers have demonstrated that they are capable of ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of their child, it is possible that the child or young person may be restored to their care. The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) may seek orders to allow sufficient time for parents and/or caregivers to make necessary changes in order to reduce the risk issues that led to FACS making a care application.
http://childstory.net.au/you/child-journey/restoration/

 

[Bohemian]

Go get 'em Jubes.
We're behind you all the way!​

 

[Karinna]

How dire exactly was WT & his sister's circumstances? In the SC document it states WT was removed from his mother's care because "of concerns" he was at risk of harm.
It doesn't state he was being harmed. And by the time he was removed from his mother the sister had already been taken.

 

[sosocurious]

How dire exactly was WT & his sister's circumstances? In the SC document it states WT was removed from his mother's care because "of concerns" he was at risk of harm.
It doesn't state he was being harmed. And by the time he was removed from his mother the sister had already been taken.

Risk of significant harm status refers to the outcome of the screening at the Child Protection Helpline.

Risk of significant harm (ROSH)
A child or young person is assessed as at ROSH if the circumstances that are causing concern for the safety, welfare or wellbeing of the child or young person are present to a significant extent. This means it is sufficiently serious to warrant a response by a statutory authority, irrespective of a family’s consent.
From 24 January 2010, reports to the Child Protection Helpline must meet the threshold of ‘risk of significant harm’. Where concerns of harm do not meet the significant harm threshold, the reporter should offer and coordinate assistance or make a referral to other services, using normal referral networks.

Forwarded for information/action
Reports that have been assessed as not requiring a child protection response are forwarded on to a local Community Services Centre (CSC)/Joint Investigative Response Team (JIRT) or Brighter Futures assessment unit for information or further action.
Some reports may involve ROSH matters but not require a child protection response. For example, they may contain previously reported information where a ROSH report has already been created or they may relate to an older event and the person causing harm no longer has access to the child.

No response required
This refers to reports that do not meet the ROSH threshold and are assessed as requiring no response at that point in time.

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/facs-statistics/user-guide/glossary

 

[AussieEvie]

what if william was grabbed as a favour to someone who felt they had a right to see him, and it was only supposed to be a quick visit then drop him back to g/mas/ ff but it all went wrong when william had an asthma attack?

This was one of my theories when he first disappeared.

 

[Bohemian]

How dire exactly was WT & his sister's circumstances? In the SC document it states WT was removed from his mother's care because "of concerns" he was at risk of harm.
It doesn't state he was being harmed. And by the time he was removed from his mother the sister had already been taken.

Australian legal definitions: When is a child in need of protection?

CFCA Resource Sheet— April 2016

The components of "a child in need of protection"

The legislative provisions in each jurisdiction that relate to the definition of a child in need of care or protection, and the threshold at which statutory child protection intervention is triggered, are outlined below. These excerpts illustrate the range of different ways in which states and territories define "a child in need of protection" (or in some jurisdictions, a child "at risk"). While definitions vary, the thresholds for statutory intervention are broadly consistent. That said, there is some variation as to the threshold at which statutory services can intervene (for example, whether intervention is triggered as a result of "harm" or "serious/significant harm"). There is also variation across jurisdictions regarding whether it is abusive or neglectful actions or consequences (or a combination of the two) that are substantiated (for further detail, see Bromfield & Higgins, 2005).

Several other aspects of the definition of "a child in need of protection" are common to most, if not all, Australian jurisdictions.

For example, the range of potential perpetrators who could lead a child to be in need of protection is typically restricted to parents or people acting in the place of parents (in loco parentis). Some jurisdictions expand the definition of a child in need of protection to include children for whom no parents can be found (whether the parents are deceased or have abandoned the child and cannot be located).

Further, it is common for a child to be defined as being "in need of protection" only if they do not have a parent "able or willing" to protect them.

For a comprehensive discussion of the definition of a child in need of protection, see Bromfield and Higgins (2005).

Legislative definitions of "a child in need of protection"

New South Wales

Section 71(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 deems that a child or young person is in need of care and protection for any reason including, without limitation, any of the following:

(a) where there is no parent available to care for the child or young person as a result of death or incapacity or for any other reason;

(b) the parent acknowledge that they have serious difficulties in caring for the child or young person and, as a consequence, the child or young person is in need of care and protection;

(c) the child or young person has been, or is likely to be, physically or sexually abused or ill-treated;

(d) subject to subsection (2) the child’s or young person’s basic physical, psychological or educational needs may not be met, or are likely not to be met, by his or her parents or primary care givers;

(e) the child or young person is suffering, or is likely to suffer serious developmental impairment or serious psychological harm as a consequence of the domestic environment in which he or she is living;

(f) in the case of a child who is under the age of 14, the child has exhibited sexually abusive behaviours and an order of the Children’s Court is necessary to ensure his or her access to, or attendance at, an appropriate therapeutic service;

(g) the child or young person is subject to a care and protection order of another state or territory that is not being complied with;

(h) Section 171(1) applies in respect of the child or young person.

Section 170(1A) states that if the Children’s Court makes a care order in relation to a reason not listed in subsection (1), the Court may only do so if the Secretary pleads the reason in the care application.

Section 170(2) provides that the Children’s Court cannot conclude that the basic needs of a child or young person are likely not to be met only because of:

(a) a parent’s or primary care-giver’s disability; or

(b) poverty.

Threshold employed

A child is in need of protection (and thus requires a statutory response) if they are at “risk of significant harm”.

According to Section 23, a child or young person is at-risk of significant harm if:

(a) the child's or young person's basic physical or psychological needs are not being met or are at risk of not being met;

(b) the parents or other caregivers have not arranged and are unable or unwilling to arrange for the child or young person to receive necessary medical care;

(b1) in the case of a child or young person who is required to attend school in accordance with the Education Act 1990 - the parents or other caregivers have not arranged and are unable or unwilling to arrange for the child or young person to receive an education in accordance with that Act;​

(c) the child or young person has been, or is at risk of being, physically or sexually abused or ill-treated;

(d) the child or young person is living in a household where there have been incidents of domestic violence and, as a consequence, the child or young person is at risk of serious physical or psychological harm;

(e) a parent or other caregiver has behaved in such a way towards the child or young person that the child or young person has suffered or is at risk of suffering serious psychological harm;

(f) the child was the subject of a pre-natal report under section 25 and the birth mother of the child did not engage successfully with support services to eliminate, or minimise to the lowest level reasonably practical, the risk factors that gave rise to the report.

Authors and Acknowledgements

This paper was updated by Kathryn Goldsworthy, Research Officer with the Child Family Community Australia (CFCA) information exchange at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Previous editions have been compiled by Deborah Scott, Leah Bromfield and Prue Holzer.

Publication details

CFCA Resource Sheet
Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, April 2016.
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/australian-legal-definitions-when-child-need-protection

References

Bromfield, L. M., & Higgins, D. J. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems (NCPC Issues No. 22). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/national-comparison-child-protection-systems

 

[iailwa]

Go get 'em Jubes.
We're behind you all the way!​

wish he'd come & arrest me, i think i have a little crush -- MOO

 

[Karinna]

We still don't know the exact circumstances of the "T" children being removed other than the BP's had run ins with police and the BD has drug & alcohol problems. With a concern for the children's safety. They had not been physically harmed.
I daresay the run ins with police and the BD's incarcerations etc. were enough at the time for FACS to step in because police probably alerted them to the situation?
But that was then and this is now. KT has her act together and i daresay worked at that to the extent that her other children have been in her care since with no concerns about the children's safety according to the SC. So i think credit to her where credit is due, and she now seeks custody of her other child, which can be a lengthy drawn out issue in the court system from what i know.

 

[frogwell]

No realistic possibility of returning to birth mother.
That's a big call, it must have been a pretty dire situation William and his sister were in

Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?

 

[Hbayne]

Can any of us acces the court documents that this information came from? Where has some of this information come from and is it legal?

The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

 

[Karinna]

The information is from a post from bohemian. You'd have to ask the daily telegraph and the reporter .

And it was i'm sure in regard to the court hearing with FACS as to why that should happen at that time. And it was what was determined at the time. But i doubt whether that is set in stone depending on the ongoing situation. Those things can obviously be reviewed from the fact that KT now recently seeks custody of her daughter.
And i doubt whether MSM are privy to FACS case notes on the situation, because it is private & protected information by law.

 

[Detective Willy]

I have just became more interested in this case because of the recent publicity and 2 things strike me. 1 - it would have been so much more helpful if more information was released earlier.2 - after google street mapping IMO this was a planned abduction and was not an accident. There is no way someone was just driving past and took William. It had to be a neighbour, a relative or is related to the BS line of enquiries. It does not look random, probably stating the obvious.

 

[Bohemian]

Still: 'William Tyrrell Foster Revelation: A Current Affair' (Aug 24, 2017)
https://youtu.be/yJrMWrBcLUE

Personally, I find it much more than distracting. In fact, it's a downright PITA.

 

[Bohemian]

I have just became more interested in this case because of the recent publicity and 2 things strike me. 1 - it would have been so much more helpful if more information was released earlier.2 - after google street mapping IMO this was a planned abduction and was not an accident. There is no way someone was just driving past and took William. It had to be a neighbour, a relative or is related to the BS line of enquiries. It does not look random, probably stating the obvious.

Agreed on the first count. Regardless of the motive and MO, I think William's disappearance was the work of a reasoning offender.

Interesting article:

http://ripleeforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/2011/12/15/child-abduction-a-theory-of-criminal-behavior/

 

[bearbear]

700 persons of interest is a lot of people to investigate, det jubelin has recently stated its less likely to be involvement of a paedophile ring, so it seems a lot if its not a ring, who are all these pois? are they friends and associates of family, lone paedophiles, childless couples, are all these people connected 6 degrees of separation etc?

 

[Detective Willy]

I also wonder what the statistics are for young abducted children being found and never being found after 3 years like this case?

 

[iailwa]

I have just became more interested in this case because of the recent publicity and 2 things strike me. 1 - it would have been so much more helpful if more information was released earlier.2 - after google street mapping IMO this was a planned abduction and was not an accident. There is no way someone was just driving past and took William. It had to be a neighbour, a relative or is related to the BS line of enquiries. It does not look random, probably stating the obvious.

What if it was a pedo who likes to pull off the main road to find a quiet rd to smoke a pipe or a joint?