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

[Lou Lou]

So they don't need to give 'Permission' as such?

I imagine if they have previously given permission it wouldn't be asked again, they would get notification though.

Being "consulted" is a courtesy...not a mandate on your requests being met.

 

[Lou Lou]

I think because of the special circumstances regarding WT she might have a good case though, seeing as it is such a high profile criminal case.

Perhaps...but she would also need a fabbo legal team and deep pockets!
Old adage.. You can't fight bureaucracy!

 

[Karinna]

I don't think that would be possible now with her current situation. :thinking:

I don't think her other issues in court would impact much on that though? I think her relapse could be attributed somewhat to such a stressful situation she has found herself in, in regard to her missing child who is feared deceased and whereabouts unknown. What precipitated that event at the shopping centre as well? We don't know how custody of her daughter to be reinstated will go, and that will be up to the family court to decide.

 

[Karinna]

Perhaps...but she would also need a fabbo legal team and deep pockets!
Old adage.. You can't fight bureaucracy!

Oh i know, but you can work with them if you are willing to do the work. She has a lot on her plate for sure.
And some people have fought bureaucracy in court and won.

 

[louisepiglet]

Yes, see, that would be a legitimate concern a birth parent could raise. One child has already gone missing, please don't take my other O/S until we find out what has happened.

FaCS need to consult the BF on their decisions and the BF have a right to fight the minister in court to change the decision. They can't just say "No, I don't want that" and they are agreed to.

FaCS will make a decision, in consultation with the BF, if the birth family disagree, they can then go to the minister, childrens guardian or court. However, I still think the odds are stacked way too far against the BF, but they can take other avenues if they have the means to do so.

BBM. I think that would be the key in KTs situation. I don't think anyone in the family would have the means.

 

[sleepinoz]

I don't think her other issues in court would impact much on that though? I think her relapse could be attributed somewhat to such a stressful situation she has found herself in, in regard to her missing child who is feared deceased and whereabouts unknown. What precipitated that event at the shopping centre as well? We don't know how custody of her daughter to be reinstated will go, and that will be up to the family court to decide.

It's not her issues in court I am alluding to. She has more pressing current issues.

 

[sosocurious]

Oh i know, but you can work with them if you are willing to do the work. She has a lot on her plate for sure.
And some people have fought bureaucracy in court and won.

Ms Tyrrell’s next serious conviction, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault and destroy or damage property, occurred in early 2014, six months before three-year-old William disappeared.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...n/news-story/e0b4b14a504a9e6e339dbf01ebe57a76

Six months before William disappeared while she was pregnant with another child.:thinking:

Even with deep pockets and a fabbo legal team - big job for them given the client seems to have spend a bit of time in other courts.
imo

 

[Karinna]

Ms Tyrrell’s next serious conviction, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault and destroy or damage property, occurred in early 2014, six months before three-year-old William disappeared.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...n/news-story/e0b4b14a504a9e6e339dbf01ebe57a76

Six months before William disappeared while she was pregnant with another child.:thinking:

Even with deep pockets and a fabbo legal team - big job for them given the client seems to have spend a bit of time in other courts.
imo

Yes, 2014 and nothing after that for 3 years. So what precipitated last years fiasco?

 

[sosocurious]

Yes, 2014 and nothing after that for 3 years. So what precipitated last years fiasco?

Nothing we are aware of.
imo

 

[Karinna]

Nothing we are aware of.
imo

That's right, we didn't hear the full story, IMO.

 

[JLZ]

Yes i appreciate what you're saying, but why have those laws in place and not acted upon? That is why birth parents have those rights isn't it? No one in FACS can override those laws or they are breaking the law and are a corrupt Govt. Dept. ,which FACS & what they used to be called DOCS, have been taken to task over corruption within their Dept. in courtrooms before. They are not without error that's for sure. But i suppose it is every birth parents right in that case to take legal action if they feel FACS is being corrupt and violating the laws put in place.

BBM

Which laws are you talking about? I don't see anything in the Family Law Act about parents' rights, only their responsibilities. I question whether there is such a thing as parental legal rights in Australia.

 

[Karinna]

BBM

Which laws are you talking about? I don't see anything in the Family Law Act about parents' rights, only their responsibilities. I question whether there is such a thing as parental legal rights in Australia.

There are Laws pertaining to those things or we wouldn't see parents in a court of law over those matters i imagine. And it's what the Family Law court determines about custody of children etc. For instance if parents divorce they have to go through custodial issues in court to determine who gets custody and if it will be shared custody, or if the other parent will even legally get custody.
Same as children in state care, it all gets hashed out in Family court as to what rights the parents will get to the child or children removed etc.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM

Which laws are you talking about? I don't see anything in the Family Law Act about parents' rights, only their responsibilities. I question whether there is such a thing as parental legal rights in Australia.

I completely agree with your comment, JLZ. As Lou Lou has said before, it is not about the rights of a parent. It is about the rights of a child.

It is not so much that a parent has the right to see/contact/care for a child, it is more that the child has the right to see/have contact with/be cared for by that parent. And when FACS has to intervene, the child's rights with that parent may be circumvented.

Every single thing that I search for regarding parental rights basically comes up with the rights of the child/ren.

As you have said, Family Court abides by this way of thinking as well. It is enacted in law.


"The Family Law Act 1975 focuses on the rights of children and the responsibilities that each parent has towards their children, rather than on parental rights. The Act aims to ensure that children can enjoy a meaningful relationship with each of their parents, and are protected from harm."
https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/ChildrenAndFamilyLaw/Pages/default.aspx

 

[Lou Lou]

There are Laws pertaining to those things or we wouldn't see parents in a court of law over those matters i imagine. And it's what the Family Law court determines about custody of children etc. For instance if parents divorce they have to go through custodial issues in court to determine who gets custody and if it will be shared custody, or if the other parent will even legally get custody.
Same as children in state care, it all gets hashed out in Family court as to what rights the parents will get to the child or children removed etc.

I'm not sure that's the case anymore, Karinna. Maybe in other countries but here (I went through a case with my ex husband 7 years ago) we apply for residency and responsibility.
The court decides who and when the child will reside with and who has responsibility for the care. There is no "custody" anymore.

So again, I figure, there are no "rights" only responsibilities. The court will award the person most equipped to see tot he needs of the child with that responsibility, not give a "parent" rights.
Even in cases of abused children, the court may give the child access to the perpetrating parent, as it is the childs "right" to have a relationship with them.

I know it doesn't seem right or just...but it's the way Family Law works, at least in NSW and from my own experience.
In MOO.

 

[Hbayne]

I completely agree with your comment, JLZ. As Lou Lou has said before, it is not about the rights of a parent. It is about the rights of a child.

It is not so much that a parent has the right to see/contact/care for a child, it is more that the child has the right to see/have contact with/be cared for by that parent. And when FACS has to intervene, the child's rights with that parent may be circumvented.

Every single thing that I search for regarding parental rights basically comes up with the rights of the child/ren.

As you have said, Family Court abides by this way of thinking as well. It is enacted in law.


"The Family Law Act 1975 focuses on the rights of children and the responsibilities that each parent has towards their children, rather than on parental rights. The Act aims to ensure that children can enjoy a meaningful relationship with each of their parents, and are protected from harm."
https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/ChildrenAndFamilyLaw/Pages/default.aspx

Well said SA, it’s not about ownership by rights of giving birth. Children first always.

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not sure that's the case anymore, Karinna. Maybe in other countries but here (I went through a case with my ex husband 7 years ago) we apply for residency and responsibility.
The court decides who and when the child will reside with and who has responsibility for the care. There is no "custody" anymore.

So again, I figure, there are no "rights" only responsibilities. The court will award the person most equipped to see tot he needs of the child with that responsibility, not give a "parent" rights.
Even in cases of abused children, the court may give the child access to the perpetrating parent, as it is the childs "right" to have a relationship with them.

I know it doesn't seem right or just...but it's the way Family Law works, at least in NSW and from my own experience.
In MOO.

BBM: Even in other western countries, this way of thinking has become more and more prevalent.

Recently, in the Cherish Perrywinkle case (USA), Cherish's surviving siblings have been permanently removed from their mother and adopted by their aunt (mother's sister) here in Australia.

The two governments got together and decided that it was the best thing for the two girls. The mother (an ex-Aussie living in the US), apparently, did not support this move, but there have been ongoing issues for so very long that this has been the final result.

So, it would seem in the US (at least, in Florida), too, the rights of the child are what is considered.

.

 

[Karinna]

What are my rights and responsibilities as a parent?

The law allows parents to bring up their children according to their own values and beliefs. This means that you have the right to make decisions about how you bring up your children without interference unless there are very good reasons and your child’s safety and wellbeing is at risk.


Decisions such as religion, schooling, discipline, medical treatment and where your child lives are your right and responsibility to make. These decisions will not be interfered with unless your child is badly treated, is not receiving education, is not allowed medical treatment when it is needed or there is an order by a court.

As a parent you have a duty to:

protect your child from harm
provide your child with food, clothing and a place to live
financially support your child
provide safety, supervision and control
provide medical care
provide an education.

It is important that children understand you have responsibilities as their parent. Setting boundaries for their safety is part of caring for them as well as your responsibility.
https://www.parentlink.act.gov.au/p...guides/adult-issues/what-about-parents-rights

 

[Violet77]

I remember a news article (which I can no longer find [emoji848]) from Jan or feb of 2016 that had a little video of William on holiday.
I can’t remember what the article was about, I just remember in the video you can hear the FF asking William a question & little Willam nods & says something along the lines of “yes, thank you” (the photo attached is a screen grab from that video)... the text from the article alluded to the family being on an overseas holiday at the time the video was taken.

Given Williams appearance, I would say that was taken not long before he disappeared, maybe this is when the family bought his Spider-Man suit, after all, the FM did state that the whole Spider-Man thing was a relatively new thing that William was into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

And the FACS website also states " The Rights of a birth parent". So yes, parents have rights which include having a say in their child's upbringing or why the heck would the FACS site even mention it?

 

[sleepinoz]

And the FACS website also states " The Rights of a birth parent". So yes, parents have rights which include having a say in their child's upbringing or why the heck would the FACS site even mention it?

Yes birth parents have rights, but do they still have the same rights if their child has been placed in 'permanent' care until the age of 18? I think that is the difference.