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

[bearbear]

With KT's approval? I doubt it.

ive seen sm photos of them in what looks like an overseas country

 

[sosocurious]

Yes, you would like to think that the parents have rights..but really, the system (Im not saying the system is right by any means!!!) is that it is the childs rights they consider.
The children have a right to know and have a relationship with their birth family. The child has a right for their family to be informed on what happens in their lives. Unfortunately, once a child is in care, a parent "loses" there rights...the parent can then only fight for the rights of their child...not their own..I know it's a harsh reality..and not one I necessarily agree with, just how it is. :-(
The minister makes all decisions for a child in care-in "consultation" with the birth parents.
Again-not approving of this-just stating how it is looked upon.

Hope im making sense and not sounding callous- not a personal judgement, just from my experiences and MOO.

That being the difference with kinship care through the family court I am guessing. Arrangements for child - parent contact can be more flexible.
More flexible if you know what I mean. As opposed to the more structured form in foster care.

PB said -

“Most of the children have some kind of problems mainly because of what’s happened to them in their past. Not only is it looking after the grandchildren, you’ve got to balance looking after your own children.”

http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1012991/paul-bickfords-our-no1-senior-volunteer/

 

[Lou Lou]

That doesn't mean a bio parent doesn't have legal rights in how their child is being raised though. From what we know KT at least has those rights, ( ie) visitation with her children etc. Whether she chooses to have input into her child's upbringing is up to her.

And again... this comes back to the "childs right" to see their parent. It is not KT right to have access, but the childs right to access/see/form a bond with their parent.
It all comes back to the childs right in Childrens matters..not the parents.

 

[Lou Lou]

That being the difference with kinship care through the family court I am guessing. Arrangements for child - parent contact can be more flexible.
More flexible if you know what I mean. As opposed to the more structured form in foster care.

PB said -

“Most of the children have some kind of problems mainly because of what’s happened to them in their past. Not only is it looking after the grandchildren, you’ve got to balance looking after your own children.”

http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1012991/paul-bickfords-our-no1-senior-volunteer/

Can be! Also saves money as a CW doesn't need to facilitate the visits. However, some families are not on speaking terms, so it still needs to go down the path of supervised visitation. All depends on individual circumstance.

 

[Karinna]

And again... this comes back to the "childs right" to see their parent. It is not KT right to have access, but the childs right to access/see/form a bond with their parent.
It all comes back to the childs right in Childrens matters..not the parents.

Yes of course the child would be #1 priority, but from the Govt. website header it states "Your rights as a birth parent", so i think the bio parents legal rights have to be taken into consideration as well. Otherwise it would be a very slippery slope to go down and we might end up with another stolen generation, god forbid. Or illegal adoptions.

 

[Lou Lou]

Yes of course the child would be #1 priority, but from the Govt. website header it states "Your rights as a birth parent", so i think the bio parents legal rights have to be taken into consideration as well. Otherwise it would be a very slippery slope to go down and we might end up with another stolen generation, god forbid. Or illegal adoptions.

Yeh...sneaky wording there, im afraid.

The law on child protection gives parents the right to be involved in, and have a say about, what happens to their child when in care.
Almost all major decisions about your child in care will be discussed at a case planning meeting, which you are invited to attend.

A parent can be involved and have a say... that is, uphold the rights of a child. Not there own.

If I had wanted to take my foster children o/s, had all my ducks in a row, was reliable and beyond reproach, but the parent simply objected out of jealousy or spite, then the right of the child to experience a family holiday would overshadow the parents objection. The parent cannot push their own rights, just push for the rights of the child and ensure their rights are upheld. They have a "right" to ensure the childs "rights" are adhered to..not in regard to their own rights.

A parent loses their "parental rights" to the minister once final orders are made. They simply have a right to be consulted so they can ensure the child's rights are being adhered to.

Horrible... couldn't imagine how maddening that would be..but that's how it is.
This is why I have enduring empathy for all birth parents who have children in care.

 

[Karinna]

Yeh...sneaky wording there, im afraid.

The law on child protection gives parents the right to be involved in, and have a say about, what happens to their child when in care.
Almost all major decisions about your child in care will be discussed at a case planning meeting, which you are invited to attend.

A parent can be involved and have a say... that is, uphold the rights of a child. Not there own.

If I had wanted to take my foster children o/s, had all my ducks in a row, was reliable and beyond reproach, but the parent simply objected out of jealousy or spite, then the right of the child to experience a family holiday would overshadow the parents objection. The parent cannot push their own rights, just push for the rights of the child and ensure their rights are upheld. They have a "right" to ensure the childs "rights" are adhered to..not in regard to their own rights.

A parent loses their "parental rights" to the minister once final orders are made. They simply have a right to be consulted so they can ensure the child's rights are being adhered to.

Horrible... couldn't imagine how maddening that would be..but that's how it is.
This is why I have enduring empathy for all birth parents who have children in care.

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.

 

[Karinna]

And these are the issues a birth parent can be involved in the decision making on
(quote)
Types of decisions discussed at a case planning meeting can include:

change of your child’s school
your child going away on camp that is for one week’s duration or more
approval for enrolment in a private school
your child’s wish to marry before they are 18
consent for your child’s surgery
deciding to remove your child from a particular foster care placement
approval to change your child’s name
approval for your child to enlist in the armed forces
approval for your child to enter an apprenticeship
your child’s carer planning to travel or move interstate
your child’s carer applying for a passport and/or wanting to obtain a passport on behalf of your child in care
the carer is considering making application for sole parental responsibility of your child.
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/par...foster-care/is-your-child-in-care/your-rights

 

[sleepinoz]

ive seen sm photos of them in what looks like an overseas country

You are correct Bear, the children did go to Bali with the FP. In the very early days there were FB posts confirming this. This cannot be linked due to TOS.

The statement made by KT on FB that Karinna is referring to was for LT only, and it was way after William went missing. At that stage I doubt she had a say if they had previously traveled.

 

[Karinna]

You are correct Bear, the children did go to Bali with the FP. In the very early days there were FB posts confirming this. This cannot be linked due to TOS.

The statement made by KT on FB that Karinna is referring to was for LT only, and it was way after William went missing. At that stage I doubt she had a say if they had previously traveled.

If that is what happened? then you just acknowledged FACS is a corrupt Govt. Dept.
A birth parent Does have legal rights regardless of what you're saying. Just because there was a court order of the children's out of home care doesn't violate those legal rights. If a child is legally adopted that is a different story, but far as i know that isn't the case here.
OTOH if a birth parent doesn't wish to be part of the upbringing of their child or children, that is up to them, but you can't take it upon yourself to change the laws in place.
Unless as i said KT gave her permission to the FP's to take her child out of country?

 

[Lou Lou]

You are correct Bear, the children did go to Bali with the FP. In the very early days there were FB posts confirming this. This cannot be linked due to TOS.

The statement made by KT on FB that Karinna is referring to was for LT only, and it was way after William went missing. At that stage I doubt she had a say if they had previously traveled.

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.

 

[Lou Lou]

If that is what happened? then you just acknowledged FACS is a corrupt Govt. Dept.
A birth parent Does have legal rights regardless of what you're saying. Just because there was a court order of the children's out of home care doesn't violate those legal rights. If a child is legally adopted that is a different story, but far as i know that isn't the case here.
OTOH if a birth parent doesn't wish to be part of the upbringing of their child or children, that is up to them, but you can't take it upon yourself to change the laws in place.
Unless as i said KT gave her permission to the FP's to take her child out of country?

Our bureaucracy is far from perfect! Corrupt is a harsh word..but for lack of a better one... I somewhat agree.
MOO.

 

[Karinna]

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.

If nothing else i would imagine BM can legally ask for a different placement for her BD if she is not happy with the current situation in regard to her son being missing, as well, and if she loses her rights in family court to have her daughter's care reinstated to her?

 

[sleepinoz]

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.

Do they need to be consulted if the children had been placed in permanent care until the age of 18?

 

[Karinna]

Our bureaucracy is far from perfect! Corrupt is a harsh word..but for lack of a better one... I somewhat agree.
MOO.

Well there are lots of shenanigans going on within some of those Depts. I read about the Centrelink fiasco with the computer algorithm last year i think it was?, just before christmas, where a lot of people on Newstart payment were sent hefty debts owing, when the computer screwed it all up for them. That's corrupt IMO, and made people scared to get their allowance because of it.

 

[Lou Lou]

If nothing else i would imagine BM can legally ask for a different placement for her BD if she is not happy with the current situation in regard to her son being missing, as well, and if she loses her rights in family court to have her daughter's care reinstated to her?

She could certainly try. This could be discussed at a case meeting, but if the CW does not agree, she would then need to plead to management, then to the Minister and perhaps make a complaint to the Childrens guardian that a decision of child endangerment has been made and needs investigating then seek legal avenue through the courts.
However, I doubt highly that Legal Aid would fund this, as the support offered is very limited with Legal Aid. She would need to hire her own legal rep and pay court costs etc.
As I said...stacked wayyy out of their favour!

With the current care arrangements, the CW obviously feels the child is safe and protected, so therefore, at present, has the legal stronghold to upkeep/maintain the placement-even if KT objects. Again..Best interests of the child... as per the way FaCS see it. As FaCS/ Minister have legal responsibility/guardianship- the parents have none! They can only fight for the childs rights..not their own rights as they have none.

 

[Lou Lou]

Do they need to be consulted if the children had been placed in permanent care until the age of 18?

Consulted is a sketchy word in FaCs language. It really means "advised"! They can take on board what the BF ssay, but at the end of the day, they make the decisions and BF need to fight them if they disagree.

 

[Karinna]

She could certainly try. This could be discussed at a case meeting, but if the CW does not agree, she would then need to plead to management, then to the Minister and perhaps make a complaint to the Childrens guardian that a decision of child endangerment has been made and needs investigating then seek legal avenue through the courts.
However, I doubt highly that Legal Aid would fund this, as the support offered is very limited with Legal Aid. She would need to hire her own legal rep and pay court costs etc.
As I said...stacked wayyy out of their favour!

With the current care arrangements, the CW obviously feels the child is safe and protected, so therefore, at present, has the legal stronghold to upkeep/maintain the placement-even if KT objects. Again..Best interests of the child... as per the way FaCS see it. As FaCS/ Minister have legal responsibility/guardianship- the parents have none! They can only fight for the childs rights..not their own rights as they have none.

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.

 

[sleepinoz]

Consulted is a sketchy word in FaCs language. It really means "advised"! They can take on board what the BF ssay, but at the end of the day, they make the decisions and BF need to fight them if they disagree.

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.

 

[sleepinoz]

I think because of the special circumstances regarding WT she might have a good case though.

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