Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) - #74

[LolaAngelina]

Non-Compliance with the Code of Conduct

The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) provides for the Minister to issue this Code of Conduct and requires authorised carers to comply with this Code of Conduct as a condition of their authorisation. This ensures carers understand their rights and responsibilities. Non-compliance with this Code of Conduct could lead a designated agency to commence an investigation into the suitability of an authorised carer to provide out-of-home care.

Under the Regulation, a designated agency may cancel or suspend the authorisation of an authorised carer if the agency is of the opinion that the authorised carer has failed to comply with any obligation or restriction imposed on the authorised carer by the Act or Regulation. Any decision to cancel of suspend the authorisation of an authorised carer is reviewable by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

------------
An authorised carer means a person who, in accordance with the regulations, is authorised as an authorised carer by a designated agency, or a person who, in accordance with the regulations, is otherwise authorised as an authorised carer.

Designated agencies are agencies accredited by the Children’s Guardian to arrange and supervise the provision of out-of-home care services.

Download

Code of Conduct for Authorised Foster, Relative and Kinship Carers

www.facs.nsw.gov.au

Foster carer legal rights and responsibilities

Information about foster carer legal rights and responsibilities, including Code of Conduct, Partnership agreement with DCJ, and release of placement info

www.facs.nsw.gov.au

How did they break the code of conduct? Sounds like you can interpret that however you like. A missing likely abducted child doesn’t equal breaching the code of conduct. Before you say he was left unattended for a certain amount of time. We have no idea whether it was 5 minutes or 20 minutes. FACS had no legal grounds to remove the other child. When they did, she was removed. Although they werent made aware of the abuse for many many months after the event

 

[JBowie]

FACS had no legal grounds to remove the other child. When they did, she was removed. Although they werent made aware of the abuse for many many months after the event.

IMO only a lawyer versed in the applicable Act could advise about FACS and its legal grounds in any particular case.

As you see from the stuff I posted, any such actions are subject to appeal.

 

[katydid23]

They are waiting 2 and a half years to take the foster parents to trial for the assault?

Sounds like a phoney charge to me.

 

[LolaAngelina]

IMO only a lawyer versed in the applicable Act could advise about FACS and its legal grounds in any particular case.

As you see from the stuff I posted, any such actions are subject to appeal.

Yes it’s complicated for sure. That’s why l don’t agree with people saying it’s an obvious stuff up on FACS behalf.

 

[Couldbe]

The child was also left in the fp care after W disappeared AND the case an open investigation. that’s a right Royal screw-up. IMO

Looking at the scenario when William was reported missing by the Foster Mother ….. simply assessed, the fostering details were initially suppressed, and LE treated it as a wandering little 3 year old boy (while also looking at the Foster Mother as a possible Person of Interest).

While she was being considered a Person of Interest the other foster child at that time, in the care of the same Foster Mother, could have been considered also ‘at risk’….so until she had been cleared as a Person of Interest, FACS could have acted to protect the second foster child….thereby removing her. JMO

 

[iiiii's]

has anyone had a thought as to whether the delay could be strategic?

More time may have been sought by the prosecution after the FFFC was found not guilty of lying to the CC. It occurs to me that the way the case is going to be presented may need more time after considering the result and the reasons for the judge coming to that conclusion. If there were months of audio to listen to, possibly more resources were put to use to find more incidences of assault. Or more analysis done of surveillance material to see if there are instances of outright lying. I don't know, just guessing. I'm intrigued to know the guts of the stalking and intimidation charges. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

More time may have been sought by the prosecution after the FFFC was found not guilty of lying to the CC. It occurs to me that the way the case is going to be presented may need more time after considering the result and the reasons for the judge coming to that conclusion. If there were months of audio to listen to, possibly more resources were put to use to find more incidences of assault. Or more analysis done of surveillance material to see if there are instances of outright lying. I don't know, just guessing. I'm intrigued to know the guts of the stalking and intimidation charges. MOO

I have read two articles that say that the police/prosecution were ready to go ahead, and opposed the adjournment.

But the late service of the police brief to the defence, and other reasons, caused the adjournment.

This is one of the articles.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/delay-in-latest-william-tyrrell-case/news-story/21a07e9a4880ac88827ca39e7f619db7?amp&nk=053ae293d6dfe4da3fbce968c2a50e02-1674619256

 

[iiiii's]

I have read two articles that say that the police/prosecution were ready to go ahead, and opposed the adjournment.

But the late service of the police brief to the defence, and other reasons, caused the adjournment.

This is one of the articles.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/delay-in-latest-william-tyrrell-case/news-story/21a07e9a4880ac88827ca39e7f619db7?amp&nk=053ae293d6dfe4da3fbce968c2a50e02-1674619256

Cool. That explains that then,

 

[deugirtni]

More time may have been sought by the prosecution after the FFFC was found not guilty of lying to the CC. It occurs to me that the way the case is going to be presented may need more time after considering the result and the reasons for the judge coming to that conclusion. If there were months of audio to listen to, possibly more resources were put to use to find more incidences of assault. Or more analysis done of surveillance material to see if there are instances of outright lying. I don't know, just guessing. I'm intrigued to know the guts of the stalking and intimidation charges. MOO

FFC wasn't found not-guilty of lying to the CC, she was found not-guilty of 'deliberately' lying to the CC.

Magistrate Miranda Moody said she could not "discount the possibility she was mistaken and did not deliberately lie" to the commission, because she made such prompt admissions of hitting and kicking the child in other instances during the hearing.

Tyrrell's foster mum acquitted of lying

 

[deugirtni]

Cool. That explains that then,

Yes, it is the defence that is holding things up. Police and prosecutors were ready to roll.

 

[JLZ]

Yes, it is the defence that is holding things up. Police and prosecutors were ready to roll.

No. That's like blaming the last runner in a losing relay team who didn't get the baton until a few seconds before the race was over. The defence couldn't prepare until they had the police brief. The brief was delivered 'late'. And the prosecution waves its hands and says Not our fault, we're ready to go ahead; we opposed the adjournment. Hypocrisy.

 

[Couldbe]

More time may have been sought by the prosecution after the FFFC was found not guilty of lying to the CC. It occurs to me that the way the case is going to be presented may need more time after considering the result and the reasons for the judge coming to that conclusion. If there were months of audio to listen to, possibly more resources were put to use to find more incidences of assault. Or more analysis done of surveillance material to see if there are instances of outright lying. I don't know, just guessing. I'm intrigued to know the guts of the stalking and intimidation charges. MOO

With that unexpected outcome, it would be opportune for the LE to 'sharpen their pencils' in preparation for the upcoming Hearings connected to the Fosters. JMO

 

[Marg944]

Looking at the scenario when William was reported missing by the Foster Mother ….. simply assessed, the fostering details were initially suppressed, and LE treated it as a wandering little 3 year old boy (while also looking at the Foster Mother as a possible Person of Interest).

While she was being considered a Person of Interest the other foster child at that time, in the care of the same Foster Mother, could have been considered also ‘at risk’….so until she had been cleared as a Person of Interest, FACS could have acted to protect the second foster child….thereby removing her. JMO

The fosters were also given another child during this time, in July 2021 a six year old child was placed in their care.

William Tyrrell’s foster mother accused of hitting child with wooden spoon, court hears

William Tyrrell’s foster mother allegedly hit a child with a wooden spoon and kicked her on the floor when the girl was misbehaving, a Sydney court has heard.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Marg944]

It looks like FMFC's charges of lying to the NSWCC is in Court next week? Lawlink has a listing for it. IMO

 

[sleepinoz]

It looks like FMFC's charges of lying to the NSWCC is in Court next week? Lawlink has a listing for it. IMO

Wasn't that the charge she was found not guilty of? Must be another charge IMO

William Tyrrell's foster mum found not guilty of lying to NSW Crime Commission

www.9news.com.au

 

[Marg944]

Wasn't that the charge she was found not guilty of? Must be another charge IMO

William Tyrrell's foster mum found not guilty of lying to NSW Crime Commission

www.9news.com.au

You may be right, but my post is about the FMFC, which is the male…. not the female.

 

[sleepinoz]

You may be right, but my post is about the FMFC, which is the male…. not the female.

OK Thanks my mistake - but aren't they supposed to be named FFC and MFC according to Coroners instructions etc?

 

[LolaAngelina]

It looks like FMFC's charges of lying to the NSWCC is in Court next week? Lawlink has a listing for it. IMO

It’s just initials, it could be anyone.

 

[deugirtni]

It looks like FMFC's charges of lying to the NSWCC is in Court next week? Lawlink has a listing for it. IMO

Yes, this listing has the same case number as the court appearance scheduled for Feb 13th, which court date was referenced in a Daily Telegraph article stating the Feb 13th court date was in relation to the 'lying to the crime commission' charge.

Since the article is paywalled, I will adlib: it says MFC, known in court orders by initials 'XX', is also chgd with 'lying to the NSW CC', which case is scheduled for police mention at Sydney's Downing Centre on Feb 13th.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/t...e/news-story/21a07e9a4880ac88827ca39e7f619db7
----
From public Court Schedule:

30 Jan 9:30 am 2022/00014024 R v XX Criminal Local Court Return of Subpoena Unassigned Sydney Downing Centre Downing Centre Crt 4.4 Downing Ctr -
[this Jan 30th appearance is for MFC's charges of lying to the NSW Crime Commission, since it has the same case number as the one on Feb 13th below, which date has been referenced in a news article as noted below]

13 Feb 9:30 am 2022/00014024 R v XX Criminal Local Court Mention (Police) Unassigned Sydney Downing Centre Downing Centre Crt 4.5 Downing Ctr -
[this Feb 13th appearance is for MFC's charges of lying to the NSW Crime Commission as per news article: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/t...e/news-story/21a07e9a4880ac88827ca39e7f619db7 : therefore it appears the casefile number 2022/00014024 is relating to this case.]

Online Registry - Landing Page

onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw.gov.au

imo

 

[deugirtni]

No. That's like blaming the last runner in a losing relay team who didn't get the baton until a few seconds before the race was over. The defence couldn't prepare until they had the police brief. The brief was delivered 'late'. And the prosecution waves its hands and says Not our fault, we're ready to go ahead; we opposed the adjournment. Hypocrisy.

I wonder how much time was taken up by FFC's attempt to have her criminal charges dealt with under the mental health act?

And in reality, the Crime Commission hearing from which FFC was charged with lying, and subsequently found not guilty of 'deliberately' lying about the wooden spoon assault, took place IIRC in November 2021? That would have been the very latest that FFC knew the exact evidence against her in regard to the alleged wooden spoon assault.. and that was over one year ago. Not enough time to build a defence (or just plead guilty)?

Some may call it hypocrisy. Some may call it working the system. imo.

From an article May 12, 2022:

The charges were mentioned in Parramatta Local Court on Friday, when magistrate Peter Feather listed the mother's section 14 application for hearing on June 30.

The mental health application seeks to have criminal charges dismissed without a conviction or finding of guilt.

The charges against both foster parents were set down for a three-day hearing to start on January 16.

The magistrate was told the prosecution case includes surveillance material.

William's foster parents face 2023 hearing