"Ted" died. Details in Natter.

Well, he was a robot.

This might be the cookies talking, but he rocked.

He rocked like a rocking thing. A funny rocking thing.

What's lovely about the secrecy, is that it's a wonderful detail about the corruption of the Council. It's subtle, but it's powerful. Now I sincerely believe Giles insisted Buffy follow Coucil protocol on the secrecy issue, because he believed it would help keep Joyce safe. But it's really a great analogy for the secrecy aspect of child molestation. "Don't tell your Mom, or she'll die."

Good point, Cindy. I didn't pick up on that aspect. I approached it more with "The Council is stuck in its hideabound ways", but your point makes even more sense, and follows the later implications about the Council better.

I don't think Joyce would have turned Buffy over to social services or anything, but she could have moved away from Sunnydale and had Buffy undergo intensive therapy, if not outright committing her for a while, which would have seriously hampered Buffy's effectiveness. The only way Joyce could have been convinced was outright proof (just like that seen in "Becoming"), but Giles would have never approved it, since he hadn't broken free from the Council himself yet.

Absolutely.

(I meant about the rocking funny man that was John Ritter -- but true about Giles and the Council too.)

Now I sincerely believe Giles insisted Buffy follow Coucil protocol on the secrecy issue, because he believed it would help keep Joyce safe.

Is secrecy council policy, or a side effect of them finding her so late? Kendra's parents certainly knew. If standard practice is to take the child away, the parents would know something.

If standard practice is to take the child away, the parents would know something.

I see both removing the child, and swearing the child to secrecy as tools of control. In Kendra's Caribe Leprachaun culture, they were able to exert obvious control over her. In Buffy's Mall Culture, the control was behind the scenes. In both cases, neither girl was truly under the watchful care of her own family. The council had all the knowledge and made the decisions about one of the elements of her life that was likely to have the most impact, up to and including her death.

In both cases, neither girl was truly under the watchful care of her own family.

True, but in one scenario the parents had willingly given the child up. I don't see Council protocol on a secrecy issue here.

Buffy started out outside policy.

True, but in one scenario the parents had willingly given the child up. I don't see Council protocol on a secrecy issue here.

But both tacticts, removing the child, and swearing her to secrecy, accomplish the same goals. The child's family is less likely to be used against her, and are less likely to interfer, and aren't around to protect her. Kendra didn't even really know/remember her parents. Secrecy wasn't necessary, because the CoW could get (more of) what they wanted, more directly.

There's nothing that leads me to believe that Kendra is any more a typical case than is Buffy. Buffy started late, but we never heard Faith's family knew, or Nikki's family knew, and we never got any of that sort of background on the SiTs either. My guess is that in some cultures, the family surrendered the child to community elders (who either were part of the CoW, or agents of) and in other cultures, the child was approached without parental knowledge. It didn't look to me like any of the SiTs had been in training since their toddler years.