Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #70

Status
Not open for further replies.

Awakening

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
519
Reaction score
5,019
This is exactly what I think happened. We will find out more as time goes by and the foster parents have their day(s) in court imo. It’s coming up soon. I’ll bet you this last search and charges against the foster parents will break the case wide open. Of course this is only my opinion. <modsnip> I always keep an open mind ALWAYS! That’s something all of us including le NEED to ALWAYS do. Because look where we are now years later… The truth is finally coming to light. <modsnip> Times have changed. Amount of trips have changed etc. <modsnip> I doubt le would go through all of this to be sued again. Do you? I think they learned their lesson Imo. Prayers for William today and everyday! I love you lil one. RIP

I really hope you are right this time too. My heart breaks for little William and his sister. I'm really concerned this case will go cold. I hope your instincts are spot on again! Lord knows we all want a resolution for William.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JBowie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
971
Reaction score
7,272

<modsnip>

IMO, nothing is finally coming to light and, IMO, that won't have a chance of happening until all of the various suppression orders are removed so that light might enter. Even then, the truth may not be evident.

My strong feeling is that this case will never be resolved. I feel that, like the Beaumont Children case, there will be theories galore for decades to come, but, unfortunately, no resolution. Nonetheless, I do very much hope that there is a resolution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
981
Reaction score
922
<modsnip>

IMO, nothing is finally coming to light and, IMO, that won't have a chance of happening until all of the various suppression orders are removed so that light might enter. Even then, the truth may not be evident.

My strong feeling is that this case will never be resolved. I feel that, like the Beaumont Children case, there will be theories galore for decades to come, but, unfortunately, no resolution. Nonetheless, I do very much hope that there is a resolution.

Totally agree. Yes we have some charges but nothing related to William. We don’t even know the details of those charges. Sadly l think you’re right and his case will become much like the Beaumonts. That’s not me giving up hope but just looking at the reality and what solid evidence could even be found at this stage. IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mauig’ma

Love & Light
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
8,205
Totally agree. Yes we have some charges but nothing related to William. We don’t even know the details of those charges. Sadly l think you’re right and his case will become much like the Beaumonts. That’s not me giving up hope but just looking at the reality and what solid evidence could even be found at this stage. IMO
A confession and or evidence we haven’t had the opportunity to see or hear about yet. Moo
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
Messages
131
Reaction score
1,348
I been finding it odd, that all this information video etc about the Foster Parents being released in media. I am wary about the charges which the foster family been given I am standing back/or sitting on the fence. <modsnip: Removed details of unrelated case>

With the stress of William disappearence, death of her mother etc the foster Mother applying for Mental Health Act to her charges, the stress in household over the years could lead to an arguement and incident accured but not as bad as it was hinted/stated.

I found it odd in the reporting it was stated "we could have up to ten witness over the incident.....
Could? Either that is bad reporting or a bad court statement. IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tessi V

Active Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2021
Messages
19
Reaction score
150
I been finding it odd, that all this information video etc about the Foster Parents being released in media. I am wary about the charges which the foster family been given I am standing back/or sitting on the fence. <modsnip: Removed details of unrelated case>

With the stress of William disappearence, death of her mother etc the foster Mother applying for Mental Health Act to her charges, the stress in household over the years could lead to an arguement and incident accured but not as bad as it was hinted/stated.

I found it odd in the reporting it was stated "we could have up to ten witness over the incident.....
Could? Either that is bad reporting or a bad court statement. IMO
<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

Given the nature of this case (a missing child), it was always going to attract extreme media attention and a strong public reaction, irrespective of if they are foster carers or not. So I honestly struggle to understand how William's sister was not removed and why it wasn't considered in the best interest of both her and the FP.
After reading that and hearing of other horror stories, I feel FACS didn't act accordingly in the situation at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
Given the nature of this case (a missing child), it was always going to attract extreme media attention and a strong public reaction, irrespective of if they are foster carers or not. So I honestly struggle to understand how <sister> was not removed and why it wasn't considered in the best interest of both her and the FP.
After reading that and hearing of other horror stories, I feel FACS didn't act accordingly in the situation at all.

Should the children of a biological family who have had a child go missing be removed from their biological family, or should this only happen to foster families?

Missing children cases involving biological families invoke strong media attention and public reaction also.


Eg: CS in Western Australia. Should CS's little sister have been removed until the police worked out who took CS?
And, if so, when should CS's little sister have been given back to her parents? When TK was arrested and charged, or after he has been found guilty (presumably he will be found guilty)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JBowie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
971
Reaction score
7,272
Should the children of a biological family who have had a child go missing be removed from their biological family, or should this only happen to foster families?

Missing children cases involving biological families invoke strong media attention and public reaction also.


Eg: CS in Western Australia. Should CS's little sister have been removed until the police worked out who took CS?
And, if so, when should CS's little sister have been given back to her parents? When TK was arrested and charged, or after he has been found guilty (presumably he will be found guilty)?

Each case on its merits. For instance, if in the investigation of a missing child, police or child welfare authority discover circumstances about the family (bio or otherwise) that alarm them regarding other children in their care, then we would expect child welfare to act and, these days, given the amount of flack they cop when things go wrong, child welfare tends to act quickly.
 

deugirtni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
9,670
Reaction score
25,675
Should the children of a biological family who have had a child go missing be removed from their biological family, or should this only happen to foster families?

Missing children cases involving biological families invoke strong media attention and public reaction also.


Eg: CS in Western Australia. Should CS's little sister have been removed until the police worked out who took CS?
And, if so, when should CS's little sister have been given back to her parents? When TK was arrested and charged, or after he has been found guilty (presumably he will be found guilty)?
Imo, foster parents are held to higher standards than bio parents. The government is reimbursing the foster families for expenses (ie 'room and board', approved daycare, clothing, medical expenses, etc.), they have to adhere to different rules (such as, fosters don't have a choice on whether or not to immunize their foster kids, while bio parents can make that choice for their own kids), they're watched with more scrutiny, must keep notes, etc. Considering the case was an unknown, FACS only knew the child had disappeared under their care, I am actually gobsmacked that they did NOT remove the remaining foster child(ren) from the home, just simply to err on the side of caution. Bio parents are given more leeway with their own children in free societies, such as Australia. imo.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
Each case on its merits. For instance, if in the investigation of a missing child, police or child welfare authority discover circumstances about the family (bio or otherwise) that alarm them regarding other children in their care, then we would expect child welfare to act and, these days, given the amount of flack they cop when things go wrong, child welfare tends to act quickly.

As far as I can see, FACS did act right away when the said minor child was allegedly assaulted.
 

SleepyJoe

Verified - Medical Specialist (Anaesthetist)
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Messages
209
Reaction score
2,103
<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

Given the nature of this case (a missing child), it was always going to attract extreme media attention and a strong public reaction, irrespective of if they are foster carers or not. So I honestly struggle to understand how William's sister was not removed and why it wasn't considered in the best interest of both her and the FP.
After reading that and hearing of other horror stories, I feel FACS didn't act accordingly in the situation at all.
I agree. Whether William was "taken" or died at 48 Benaroon, the FCs failed their duty of care to keep him safe. They were PAID by the state (ie by us the taxpayers) to provided a more stable, loving and safer home than presumably the biological parents could provide. Clearly they failed to do this by "losing" William. So why was the sister left there? In addition, how long had they been assaulting the sister which eventually, 7 years later, necessitated her being removed? Whatever the answers IMO FACS need to be seriously scrutinised about the way they managed these children's care. My heart breaks for all the children involved here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,274
Hi katydid23,
As discussed previously in this thread the child who we assume was William's sister was removed from the foster carers' care and placed in another family when the assault charges were served. My personal opinion is that we should use accurate terms. The FFC and MFC were her foster carers, not her "parents". This is how they were referred to in the inquest. The sister has biological parents and she has current foster carers who she is now living with and former foster carers, who we refer to as FFC and MFC as per the Coroner. This is certainly not intended to offend anyone, it is just to be accurate and avoid any unnecessary emotional overtones, which I think is always important for objective discussion of specific details of a case.
Thanks.
From what I understood, she called them mum and dad. They were the only 2 people who ever took care of her on a daily and nightly basis. All of her school mates thought they were her parents and she treated them as if they were her parents.

As far as I understood, she was going to stay with them long term, in fact, for her entire childhood. Given this context, I think 'parents' is the accurate term. There are various types of parents; bio parents, foster parents, God parents.

You may prefer to call them 'foster carers' but the term foster parents is also correct and objective. Many people refer to fosterers as foster parents. Children need parents, not just carers, if they are to be in long term care. JMO IMO MOO



PARENTS-definition of:
1a: one that begets or brings forth offspringjust became parents of twins
b: a person who brings up and cares for another/foster parents
2a: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspringThe parent brings food to the chicks.
b: the material or source from which something is derivedLatin is the parent of several languages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
981
Reaction score
922
From what I understood, she called them mum and dad. They were the only 2 people who ever took care of her on a daily and nightly basis. All of her school mates thought they were her parents and she treated them as if they were her parents.

As far as I understood, she was going to stay with them long term, in fact, for her entire childhood. Given this context, I think 'parents' is the accurate term. There are various types of parents; bio parents, foster parents, God parents.

You may prefer to call them 'foster carers' but the term foster parents is also correct and objective. Many people refer to fosterers as foster parents. Children need parents, not just carers, if they are to be in long term care. JMO IMO MOO



PARENTS-definition of:
1a: one that begets or brings forth offspringjust became parents of twins
b: a person who brings up and cares for another/foster parents
2a: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspringThe parent brings food to the chicks.
b: the material or source from which something is derivedLatin is the parent of several languages.
I think in this case people have different views on who they consider the “parents”. Personally l agree with you, DNA doesn’t make a “parent”. <modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
<snipped for focus>Whatever the answers IMO FACS need to be seriously scrutinised about the way they managed these children's care.

If the FP are found to be culpable, I feel sure that FACS/C&J will be subject to an inquiry.

My state's DCP are currently undergoing another inquiry due to two little ones not being removed from their biological mother (who had drug issues, of which DCP were aware), and now they are deceased at the hands of her boyfriend. As is the mother.

However, if the FP are not found to be culpable in William's disappearance, FACS have likely done all they can do by removing the sister when the FP were charged with alleged assault.

In addition, FACS resources are slim (not enough foster carers). Do we go back to institutionalised care for the large number of removed children? Make the whole thing easier to manage, to the detriment of many of the children?

It is not criminal, nor even unlikely, that any parent would allow their child to run around in their grandmother's garden.

imo
 
Last edited:

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
981
Reaction score
922
If the FP are found to be culpable, I feel sure that FACS/C&J will be subject to an inquiry.

My state's DCP are currently undergoing another inquiry due to two little ones not being removed from their biological mother (who had drug issues, of which DCP were aware), and now they are deceased at the hands of her boyfriend. As is the mother.

However, if the FP are not found to be culpable in William's disappearance, FACS have likely done all they can do by removing the sister when the FP were charged with alleged assault.

In addition, FACS resources are slim (not enough foster carers). Do we go back to institutionalised care for the large number of removed children? Make the whole thing easier to manage, to the detriment of many of the children?

It is not criminal, nor even unlikely, that any parent would allow their child to run around in their grandmother's garden.

imo
The foster parents haven’t even been charged for anything regarding William. They had no basis to remove his sister when he went missing. Imagine if they had of and his sister was taken away from the only parents she knew and she doesn’t know where her brother is. Years later William is found and someone else is found responsible.
 

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
32,774
Reaction score
86,581
ADMIN NOTE:

We've had to edit numerous posts due to member's using the real initials for William's sister.

Members have known for a very, very long time not to use anything that would identify her.

We will no longer edit any post that contains her real initials and will simply remove the entire post and all responses.

Tricia's Opening Post of every thread stipulates:
Here is what we can and cannot discuss.

No identifying the biological family, the foster family or any associates ( ie siblings, etc ) or their addresses, places of employment or childcare, etc

They can be identified as bio mother etc & female foster carer etc

At the inquest, they are known as biological mother & father. Foster family are known as FFC ( female foster carer ) MFC ( male foster carer ) FFGM ( female foster grandmother ) etc

REMEMBER THE ABOVE PEOPLE CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED USING THEIR INITIALS.
 

T-dawg420

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
311
Reaction score
1,845
“Since November, William's foster parents have been charged with assault and intimidation of a child and with lying to the NSW Crime Commission.“

I think it’s important to remember that while these charges sound alarming and worrying, there is absolutely no guilt found against the FC’s. Being charged doesn’t mean you’re guilty, and thankfully so! BS is a great example of what happens to someone when being charged is automatically attributed to being guilty!

Look at CS’s parents in the Carnarvon case for another example.

 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,705
Reaction score
138,245
While charges do not equate to guilt, what are we to make of the FFC wanting those charges dismissed on mental health grounds? Surely if there is no basis for them, such an application would not be necessary.

I believe that using the Mental Health Act can also be a sign that a person is not fit to enter a plea.


"Application of the laws means that some persons charged with criminal offences are judged not fit to enter a plea ....."

"There are certain situations where a defendant in a criminal case case cannot be made to go to trial.
This includes where the person does not understand the charges they are faced with, or how to plead (guilty or not guilty) to the charges, or the nature of the proceedings, or the effect of evidence given against them, or is not able to defend themselves or properly instruct their lawyers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top