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

[frogwell]

Don't think BD would be suffering from that.

He had explained at the inquest that he often did not visit the children but did when he could as at the time he was working 7 days a week and trying to make all the improvements he could to have his children come home. the BD went to every visit.

 

[Thebottomline]

He had explained at the inquest that he often did not visit the children but did when he could as at the time he was working 7 days a week and trying to make all the improvements he could to have his children come home. the BD went to every visit.

Doesn’t really matter as whatever both sets of parents did or didn’t do at this stage doesn’t seem the reason William was taken. The poi.s we’ve been made aware of have no links to either family

 

[frogwell]

RSBM



No you didn't say they changed the order but you did say that they changed from short term to long term. They didn't change anything, they had only been FCer's for a few months and had done emergency care, as stated in the Podcast. When applying to be a FCer you state what you would prefer to do, but I think the short terms would be how you start off to see if you can handle it. IMO you were insinuating that they decided that they wanted this particular family. If I interpreted that incorrectly I apologise.

In NSW it is only Open Adoptions.

Adoption that occurs today is called ‘open’ adoption.

Want to adopt?

OK, having read through that document, it seems like the sales pitch to me for why it would be palatable to have your children adopted out when you don't want it to happen. There are the opportunities for all sorts of things to happen, but if the children are already in care, then FaCs will ultimately decide on how much contact actually happens "in the best interest of the child".

Open adoption

Open adoption has led to a number of improvements in practices, such as:

• more accountable processes for obtaining consent from (birth) parents;
• a requirement for consent to be provided by both birth parents (or the need for a parent's consent to be dispensed with by a court for a child's adoption to proceed); and
• higher quality assessments and benchmarks for assessing the suitability of prospective adopters.

Past and present adoptions in Australia

 

[frogwell]

BBM. And that right there is the bias, so anything she says or has others say or do reflects her bias. IMO.

It's very bias, but by the journalists description, not her own. I can see though her point of view towards FaCs if she does indeed hate them. <modsnip: inappropriate>

 

[stormbird]

From the latest podcast (bolded by me):

(35:07)
[Biological mother in her statement to police]: "Usually when I see the kids, William is off running around and [his sister] sits with me. William is more interested in what's happening around him."

- Ep.2: "Two Families", Where's William Tyrrell? 01 July 2019, on acast.

What's true in one setting might be different in another setting: leafy Benaroon Drive would be very different to the indoor play centre where William had his supervised visits. But if he was often interested in what was happening around him, if it was a character trait, that makes it more likely he could have wandered off initially, IMO - down the road, or into another property, say - before whatever else happened.

 

[Thebottomline]

OK, having read through that document, it seems like the sales pitch to me for why it would be palatable to have your children adopted out when you don't want it to happen. There are the opportunities for all sorts of things to happen, but if the children are already in care, then FaCs will ultimately decide on how much contact actually happens "in the best interest of the child".

Open adoption

Open adoption has led to a number of improvements in practices, such as:

• 
  
  
  • more accountable processes for obtaining consent from (birth) parents;
  • a requirement for consent to be provided by both birth parents (or the need for a parent's consent to be dispensed with by a court for a child's adoption to proceed); and
  • higher quality assessments and benchmarks for assessing the suitability of prospective adopters.

Past and present adoptions in Australia

What’s it matter, all these legal Jargons about adoption , both sets of parents cleared, Craddock said Williams status as a foster child not a factor .He was simply placed in foster care as his bio parents were deemed unfit to care for him. Maybe it just is a case of William being in the wrong place at the wrong time where evil met innocence .

 

[frogwell]

"I didn't agree [with adoption plans]. I had heard about that ... they [the case workers] said it wasn't happening; we were still trying to get the children back, we were at court," she told Ms Grahame.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...-william-tyrrell-mystery-20190424-p51grg.html
Someone knows more': police seek clues in William Tyrrell mystery

How could the case workers have informed her when the case worker and FaCs both testified that they didn't inform her or the children's father?

 

[SouthAussie]

From the latest podcast (bolded by me):

(35:07)
[Biological mother in her statement to police]: "Usually when I see the kids, William is off running around and [his sister] sits with me. William is more interested in what's happening around him."

- Ep.2: "Two Families", Where's William Tyrrell? 01 July 2019, on acast.

What's true in one setting might be different in another setting: leafy Benaroon Drive would be very different to the indoor play centre where William had his supervised visits. But if he was often interested in what was happening around him, if it was a character trait, that makes it more likely he could have wandered off initially, IMO - down the road, or into another property, say - before whatever else happened.

I think William could have been interested enough if someone started a quick rapport with him, if he was down near the roadside.
I have never thought he was grabbed and struggled when he was taken away. I think he was quickly persuaded, and quickly taken away. Come and look at my "spiderman doll/ little puppy/new truck/whatever".

I think this because (unfortunately) I personally know of two young children (at the time 3yo and 6yo) who were quickly persuaded in that kind of way to go with different people, and then assaulted, in unrelated attacks. Yes, they were both taught not to talk to strangers - as best as you can teach an innocent, unknowing child.
Both were playing in the vicinity of their homes. One in the back garden, and one close by within earshot.
People think it can't happen, but it does.

 

[frogwell]

What’s it matter, all these legal Jargons about adoption , both sets of parents cleared, Craddock said Williams status as a foster child not a factor .He was simple placed in foster care as his bio parents were deemed unfit to care for him.

Both sets of parents want the same thing, the children. Both sets of parents are cleared for being where they said they were at the time WT disappeared, but relatives and associates are not at this stage.

 

[Thebottomline]

Both sets of parents want the same thing, the children. Both sets of parents are cleared for being where they said they were at the time WT disappeared, but relatives and associates are not at this stage.

That’s right and we may not know who will be called ap st the inquest but we have a neighbour and another with a dubious part calked up .

 

[sosocurious]

How could the case workers have informed her when the case worker and FaCs both testified that they didn't inform her or the children's father?

Maybe the case workers saying "It isn't happening" was in reply to a question asked by the BM. With the changes to open adoption being introduced back then. I could imagine a parent, foster parent or significant other asking the question of case workers about the changes and what it means for their particular situation.
jmo

 

[frogwell]

RSBM



No you didn't say they changed the order but you did say that they changed from short term to long term. They didn't change anything, they had only been FCer's for a few months and had done emergency care, as stated in the Podcast. When applying to be a FCer you state what you would prefer to do, but I think the short terms would be how you start off to see if you can handle it. IMO you were insinuating that they decided that they wanted this particular family. If I interpreted that incorrectly I apologise.

In NSW it is only Open Adoptions.

Adoption that occurs today is called ‘open’ adoption.

Want to adopt?

I wasn't insinuating, they wanted this particular family. I was putting forward the idea, that they realised that they wanted a family and this was an avenue to that occurring.

 

[frogwell]

That’s right and we may not know who will be called ap st the inquest but we have a neighbour and another with a dubious part calked up .

Are you saying "dubious past", because he doesn't, or are you saying "dubious part" as in a strange part for a washing mahine?

 

[SouthAussie]

Are you saying "dubious past", because he doesn't, or are you saying "dubious part" as in a strange part for a washing mahine?

I am sorry, because he was found not guilty does not mean that he is innocent of the charges (dubious past). imo
It is not a fact that he has no dubious past. Just that the charges were difficult to prove after 30+ years, as happens in too many historical cases, so he walked (again imo).

And because the seven Vic charges were then dropped does not mean he committed no offences there - those charges were contingent on tendency evidence from the NSW case.

Whether or not he is involved in William's disappearance .... I don't believe those little girls made the story up, or that they were mistaken who harmed them, or that their mother had it out for him and they all just went along with it, or whatever ineffective reason that I have heard before.
The only ineffective reason that I can partially understand (for the headspace in 1987) is that he wasn't prosecuted then because of the young ages of the girls. That they were 'protecting' the girls, that they thought they would just 'forget', that a trial would harm them further.


The court heard some witnesses had died but that was not unusual in historical cases.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...hild-sexual-assault-case-20160907-grako8.html

 

[stormbird]

From the latest podcast, bolded by me:

(35:52)
NB (news presenter), talking to Lia (crime reporter): "Let's move to that critical day that William disappeared. Subsequently, both the biological and foster parents were seen by police investigators as suspects, especially considering the history with William's biological parents."

I think this is quite likely rubbish. Police would have investigated all parents early on, IMO, but even if they had been "of interest" to police at the time, that wouldn't have made them "suspects". The strange thing, though, is that (a) Lia didn't say anything about this when she replied; and (b) the mistake wasn't edited out.

- Ep.2: "Two Families", Where's William Tyrrell? 01 July 2019, on acast.

 

[deugirtni]

Just some random thoughts:

-there seems to be discrepancy and confusion as to whether BM had been informed or not, whether her children would be headed towards the adoption process; BD (and BM) seemed to be clear that FACS did have an order to care for their children until age 18 (long-term wards). I'm wondering if the confusion is just a matter of semantics, with BM equating long-term care (til age 18), with 'adoption' (basically also til age 18, since one cannot rule where and with whom an 18 year old must reside), and especially if all adoptions there are 'open adoptions'?

-I am thinking that in cases where children are removed from their bio homes (just in general, not talking specifically about this case), to live in an 'open adoption' situation where the children continue on throughout their lives with access to their bio families - while it sounds like it's a feel-good type of thing, it must create some kind of additional hardship for the fostering parents when those kids reach that adolescent/teenage point in time when they're becoming 'contrary' and questioning the rules of the home, etc. It would be like (in the children's minds) there would always be another 'option' available to them; it would be like this cloud constantly hanging over the FPs where their kids could say, 'well I'm going to live with my bios as soon as I can, because their rules would be different' (or whatever), etc. I have seen that sort of thing occurring often in separated families, where the kids visit regularly with the non-custodial parent (and perhaps the custodial/non-custodial parents are not on the same page, or of the same child-rearing beliefs, etc), so I don't see why same thing wouldn't happen in a case of fostering. I'm just thinking it's gotta add an extra obstacle for the FPs to deal with when that time comes.

 

[SouthAussie]

Just some random thoughts:

-there seems to be discrepancy and confusion as to whether BM had been informed or not, whether her children would be headed towards the adoption process; BD (and BM) seemed to be clear that FACS did have an order to care for their children until age 18 (long-term wards). I'm wondering if the confusion is just a matter of semantics, with BM equating long-term care (til age 18), with 'adoption' (basically also til age 18, since one cannot rule where and with whom an 18 year old must reside), and especially if all adoptions there are 'open adoptions'?

-I am thinking that in cases where children are removed from their bio homes (just in general, not talking specifically about this case), to live in an 'open adoption' situation where the children continue on throughout their lives with access to their bio families - while it sounds like it's a feel-good type of thing, it must create some kind of additional hardship for the fostering parents when those kids reach that adolescent/teenage point in time when they're becoming 'contrary' and questioning the rules of the home, etc. It would be like (in the children's minds) there would always be another 'option' available to them; it would be like this cloud constantly hanging over the FPs where their kids could say, 'well I'm going to live with my bios as soon as I can, because their rules would be different' (or whatever), etc. I have seen that sort of thing occurring often in separated families, where the kids visit regularly with the non-custodial parent (and perhaps the custodial/non-custodial parents are not on the same page, or of the same child-rearing beliefs, etc), so I don't see why same thing wouldn't happen in a case of fostering. I'm just thinking it's gotta add an extra obstacle for the FPs to deal with when that time comes.

First part of your post: I agree. The expert in the podcast did say that there are a couple of options available, to give all long term care FP autonomy from having to clear everything through FACS. Legal guardianship or open adoption.
Perhaps the difference between the two being that the child/ren can take the FP's surname in open adoption?

Second part: I also agree (will wonders never cease ). Many teens going through their tumultuous times may want to live with another parent for a while. Happens in non-split families also. I have a friend whose teen daughter went to live with very patient grandma for a year, until she settled herself down a bit, matured a bit, and returned to her loving parental home.
Not much point in a parent projecting that far ahead, though. It is something that may or may not happen. And if it does, it is not the end of the world. The child grows up eventually and realises that all parameters were put there out of love and for good reason.

 

[papertrail]

Police always say there is strategy in everything they do. To me it is obvious they have authorized the foster carers to participate in the podcast. The timing of these podcasts is interesting.

A lot of what is revealed in this 2nd podcast is the background to events that proceeded William's journey into the OHC and detail is also raised about his female sibling's journey in the OHC as well.

To me the inclusion of the detail regarding this female child is 'superfulous' as William is the child that is of paramount importance at present.

Something keeps pushing to the front my thoughts and that is the questioning of the care worker on the 1st day of the Inquest. The question put to the male Care worker awas about a photograph he had taken of William and whether he had shown anyone that photo. He replied that he had not shown anyone. There had to be a purpose for SC Craddock to put that question and that purpose is not known at present.

Is the release of the OHC journey a strategy to put pressure on someone?

My above question should not be construed to involve the people raised in the next question?

The Speddings had fostered children in an OHC process. Do we know what FACS Agency was involved?

 

[JLZ]

I am sorry, because he was found not guilty does not mean that he is innocent of the charges (dubious past). imo
It is not a fact that he has no dubious past. Just that the charges were difficult to prove after 30+ years, as happens in too many historical cases, so he walked (again imo).

And because the seven Vic charges were then dropped does not mean he committed no offences there - those charges were contingent on tendency evidence from the NSW case.

Whether or not he is involved in William's disappearance .... I don't believe those little girls made the story up, or that they were mistaken who harmed them, or that their mother had it out for him and they all just went along with it, or whatever ineffective reason that I have heard before.
The only ineffective reason that I can partially understand (for the headspace in 1987) is that he wasn't prosecuted then because of the young ages of the girls. That they were 'protecting' the girls, that they thought they would just 'forget', that a trial would harm them further.


The court heard some witnesses had died but that was not unusual in historical cases.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...hild-sexual-assault-case-20160907-grako8.html

Was Spedding found not guilty? One of the interesting things about the article Soso linked https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...s/news-story/b60257d542b545701267d42c5ce46f6f is that it said all the historical charges were either dismissed or dropped. He did go to trial on some of the charges, from memory. Is "found not guilty" a possible meaning of "dismissed"? I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't exactly know. I'm thinking perhaps the jury were unable to agree and it was decided not to attempt a retrial.

 

[purpleandgreen]

It's very bias, but by the journalists description, not her own. I can see though her point of view towards FaCs if she does indeed hate them. <modsnip: inappropriate>

APS didn't know these people so none of her business, and because she made it her business she did them a disservice.

<modsnip>