Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #28

[Karinna]

It was drug issues and domestic violence that had William and his sister taken in the first place. If Karlie was the drug user that beat Brendan then she would not have custody of her other children. Pretty obvious really.

Yes i'm well aware, but my reply was to the post asking me to back up my post with the questions asked.

 

[Karinna]

When he was released from prison, Natalie helped her son, ensuring he went to see doctors and was prescribed medication.
But Brendan fell back into ice.
Natalie believes his friendship with Karlie is no longer viable.
He moved into Karlie’s spare room, while she had boyfriends visit the house.
“He was gone for four or five months. He was working but Karlie would go off with friends when he came home.
“He was like a pound puppy with [her kids].
“But he was using ice. He grew a big beard, his teeth were rotten.
“I could see the despair.”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/par...03ad7d2136710e

This is only NC version of events.

Yes that is her version, but she is being called out as a liar. NC also states that her son and KT are estranged per the article. I also doubt from the link i posted about restoration of her daughter that it would even be in her care plan etc. to have her ex in her life as that would be detrimental to what she is trying to achieve. If she is serious about it all that is. Why would she jeopardise that? It would be crazy IMO

 

[sosocurious]

Yes that is her version, but she is being called out as a liar. NC also states that her son and KT are estranged per the article. I also doubt from the link i posted about restoration of her daughter that it would even be in her care plan etc. to have her ex in her life as that would be detrimental to what she is trying to achieve.

Ms Collins claimed the Clifford family briefly gave William and his biological parents a place to stay when he was a baby.

'William lived with Daryl and Karen and Michael for a few months when he was a baby,' she said.

'They took Karlie and Brendan in to live with them'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Karlie-pictured-stays-mum.html#ixzz54cdr4A6n

So was this before or after Natalie was hiding them in the granny flat?

 

[Karinna]

Ms Collins claimed the Clifford family briefly gave William and his biological parents a place to stay when he was a baby.

'William lived with Daryl and Karen and Michael for a few months when he was a baby,' she said.

'They took Karlie and Brendan in to live with them'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Karlie-pictured-stays-mum.html#ixzz54cdr4A6n

So was this before or after Natalie was hiding them in the granny flat?

Well that's the problem if the stories are only coming from NC, who really knows?

 

[sosocurious]

Well that's the problem if the stories are only coming from NC, who really knows?

Yep all we know for certain is that;
Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9
imo

 

[Bohemian]

Yep all we know for certain is that;
Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9
imo

Not only that but:

’Subsequently, having found that there was no realistic possibility of restoration to their parents, the Children’s Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for Julian and Sarah to the Minister until they attain 18; their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.’

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

 

[JLZ]

Is Natalie saying that Brendan moved into Karlie house after William disappeared. It sounds like it. imo.
That can't be a good thing if you are seeking restoration of your child.
Choices ??

(snipped)

It sounds like Karlie and Brendan were sharing a house already when William vanished.

At 4.30pm police knocked on Karlie and Brendan’s door. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...d/news-story/1a73063218a15527c703ad7d2136710e

Door, not doors, apparently.

 

[Karinna]

Not only that but:

’Subsequently, having found that there was no realistic possibility of restoration to their parents, the Children’s Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for Julian and Sarah to the Minister until they attain 18; their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.’

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

Yeah i guess that was the initial court order, but couldn't pertain to now if KT can seek restoration of her daughter. Perhaps those orders can change over time and are not set in stone?

 

[Karinna]

(snipped)

It sounds like Karlie and Brendan were sharing a house already when William vanished.

At 4.30pm police knocked on Karlie and Brendan’s door. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...d/news-story/1a73063218a15527c703ad7d2136710e

Door, not doors, apparently.

Yes possibly, but it was 3+ years ago that William vanished.

 

[SouthAussie]

If Brendan is popping in and out of Karlie's life and home, each time he is not in jail, I doubt any court or guardian of the court will restore William's sister to Karlie's fulltime care. Especially when she has a stable home at the moment. It seems that Karlie has yet to prove that she is capable of keeping Brendan, a career criminal and probable ice addict, away from her home ... and, therefore, William's sister.

If the children who are living with Karlie at the present time are Brendan's biological children, I would think this would apply even more.


Karlie may be locked in a cycle of an abusive relationship. If that is so, I certainly hope she can free herself from that permanently, for the sake of her other children.

My opinion only.

.

 

[sunnybree]

Not only that but:

’Subsequently, having found that there was no realistic possibility of restoration to their parents, the Children’s Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for Julian and Sarah to the Minister until they attain 18; their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18.’

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

Just to clarify, this is how it usually works.

Concerns are raised, investigated, substantiated. Department decides to either monitor in home or remove. If monitoring and parents fail to follow the agreement between them and the Department, removal can occur then. Short-term orders granted for however long and during this time, restoration is pursued. If restoration/parents meeting case plan goals fails to happen within the duration of the short-term order, either another short-term order is applied for, or a long-term order is applied for until the child’s 18th Birthday.

When applying for a long-term order, the Department must provide evidence that they have offered all possible supports to the parents to resolve the child protection concerns to the point the parent can provide “good enough” care. The phrase “good enough” in child protection just means the care to be just good enough for the child to not suffer significant harm, or the bare minimum of care. The good enough standard required is still far below what the average community member would consider good parenting.

A long-term order granting parental responsibility to the minister means the state is the child’s guardian and decides where they will live. A foster carer only makes daily care decisions. They are not the child’s legal guardians. These orders can be revoked but in such an application the onus is now on the parent to prove they can care for the child. Revocation sought by parents in these situations is rarely granted.

If carer applies to have parental responsibility, that means they are seeking to become the child’s legal guardians, instead of the state. This is different from adoption as they become guardians, not “parents”. Semantics, but important. This is usually considered a good option, where carers are suitable, as the state is an indifferent guardian. I’m not sure about NSW but in most states, carers cannot submit the application off their own bat. The state submits the application.

Again, all states are a little different, but in my state, when these applications are made, parents are invited to consent/contest/make their views known. It seems like that is what is happening here. When contested by the parents, a big issue considered is attachment and time passed. If a child was removed at birth and has lived her entire life with one family, then that child is likely to have her primary attachment to that one family. The court considers whether a parent has got their life back on track, but if they got their life back on track years after long-term was granted and the child has been in stable care, 999 out of 1000, it is too late. It is not enough to sort your life out, you need to sort it out in a timeframe.

Please note I am not putting forward my personal views here and I am not commenting specifically about what should happen in this case.

 

[1968]

We don't really know? As i said i think a child is always better off with a bio parent/s if at all possible and KT's other children do look well cared for from photos of her and them in the msm. I'm not going to judge her if the supreme court doesn't have any issue with her.
And she also has other young siblings she can grow up with, and that just might help her a little bit to compensate for the loss of her little brother William.

These children looked well cared for too.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...e/news-story/ddcb167d25d8a02858d3818cd3b8c05c



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Just to clarify, this is how it usually works.

Please note I am not putting forward my personal views here and I am not commenting specifically about what should happen in this case.

Snipped for brevity ..

Thank you! This is exactly what we learned in the case of little Chloe Valentine ... who would likely be alive today, if her mother wasn't given so many chances with repetitive failed care plans.

 

[Karinna]

These children looked well cared for too.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...e/news-story/ddcb167d25d8a02858d3818cd3b8c05c



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as i know there was never any child abuse toward the Tyrrell children for the removal of them.

 

[Bohemian]

Just to clarify, this is how it usually works.

Concerns are raised, investigated, substantiated. Department decides to either monitor in home or remove. If monitoring and parents fail to follow the agreement between them and the Department, removal can occur then. Short-term orders granted for however long and during this time, restoration is pursued. If restoration/parents meeting case plan goals fails to happen within the duration of the short-term order, either another short-term order is applied for, or a long-term order is applied for until the child’s 18th Birthday.

When applying for a long-term order, the Department must provide evidence that they have offered all possible supports to the parents to resolve the child protection concerns to the point the parent can provide “good enough” care. The phrase “good enough” in child protection just means the care to be just good enough for the child to not suffer significant harm, or the bare minimum of care. The good enough standard required is still far below what the average community member would consider good parenting.

A long-term order granting parental responsibility to the minister means the state is the child’s guardian and decides where they will live. A foster carer only makes daily care decisions. They are not the child’s legal guardians. These orders can be revoked but in such an application the onus is now on the parent to prove they can care for the child. Revocation sought by parents in these situations is rarely granted.

If carer applies to have parental responsibility, that means they are seeking to become the child’s legal guardians, instead of the state. This is different from adoption as they become guardians, not “parents”. Semantics, but important. This is usually considered a good option, where carers are suitable, as the state is an indifferent guardian. I’m not sure about NSW but in most states, carers cannot submit the application off their own bat. The state submits the application.

Again, all states are a little different, but in my state, when these applications are made, parents are invited to consent/contest/make their views known. It seems like that is what is happening here. When contested by the parents, a big issue considered is attachment and time passed. If a child was removed at birth and has lived her entire life with one family, then that child is likely to have her primary attachment to that one family. The court considers whether a parent has got their life back on track, but if they got their life back on track years after long-term was granted and the child has been in stable care, 999 out of 1000, it is too late. It is not enough to sort your life out, you need to sort it out in a timeframe.

Please note I am not putting forward my personal views here and I am not commenting specifically about what should happen in this case.

Thank you sunnybree.

 

[SouthAussie]

As far as i know there was never any child abuse toward the Tyrrell children for the removal of them.

How would you or anyone know the reasons for their removal? That is a confidential matter between the parents and FaCS and the courts.
Because we do not know the reasons does not mean there were no reasons.

There have been indicators in MSM that it was drug taking and domestic violence. If a mother is holding a child while being pushed/hit by a partner, the child is at risk. If furniture is being thrown around in a room where a child is, the child is at risk. If the mother is injured and unable to care for her children, they are at risk. If money is being spent on drugs instead of clothing, food, housing, the child is at risk. etc etc etc

 

[sosocurious]

As far as i know there was never any child abuse toward the Tyrrell children for the removal of them.

was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm

When considering child protection history for the purposes of assessing a report the following
information may be of particular relevance:
 previous episodes of abuse and neglect and any patterns arising from these
 previous or current Children’s Court Orders and placements in out-of-home care
 previous assessments and actions by Community Services caseworkers
 previous assessments and actions by Child Wellbeing Units and mandatory reporters
 any complicating parent or carer issues, such as domestic violence, parental substance
misuse or mental health concerns

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/336303/Helpline_assessment_fact.pdf

 

[Karinna]

How would you or anyone know the reasons for their removal? That is a confidential matter between the parents and FaCS and the courts.
Because we do not know the reasons does not mean there were no reasons.

There have been indicators in MSM that it was drug taking and domestic violence. If a mother is holding a child while being pushed/hit by a partner, the child is at risk. If furniture is being thrown around in a room where a child is, the child is at risk. If the mother is injured and unable to care for her children, they are at risk. If money is being spent on drugs instead of clothing, food, housing, the child is at risk. etc etc etc

Well no one knows exactly why the children were removed, and "at risk" is a hypothetical. The father was in trouble with police for theft & drugs but i have not read either one abused the children, but have read about the drugs and whatever else has been in msm.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well no one knows exactly why the children were removed, and "at risk" is a hypothetical. The father was in trouble with police for theft & drugs but i have not read either one abused the children, but have read about the drugs and whatever else has been in msm.

And you won't read if either one abused the children ... because, again, the reasons for their removal are confidential between the parents and FaCS and the courts.

 

[Bohemian]

‘When concerns have been raised about the care and protection of a child or young person under the age of 18 years the Children's Court has jurisdiction to make court orders to ensure their safety, welfare and well-being.

The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) is the main NSW government agency responsible for implementing the laws to keep children safe from harm under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

FaCS will often work with families to ensure that a child’s safety, welfare and well-being is protected. However, in some circumstances FaCs will need to apply to the Children’s Court for a court order for example, where they believe that a child or young person should no longer live with one or both of their parents.

This ensures that an independent assessment of the facts of the case are made by a judicial officer before any final decision is made.’

‘If at any stage during the proceedings, everyone agrees on what final care orders should be made to protect the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person, then final care orders can be made “by consent” provided the judicial officer also agrees that the orders are in the best interests of the child or young person. This will be the end of the case. If no agreement can be reached, the matter may need to be heard and determined by a magistrate.

Care and protection matters are conducted with as little formality and legal technicality as the case permits. In these cases, standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities.‘

http://www.childrenscourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/typesofcase/care_protection/care_protection.aspx