{"report_id":355,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"A Child protection family assessment response to the family's home was conducted regarding allegations of neglect (inadequate supervision) involving the two older children. Staff focused attention on the older children and the neglect allegation during the initial face to face home visit.  The staff also focused attention on assessing immediate threats to safety and risk of maltreatment to  all the children during the initial contact with the family. During the initial safety and risk assessment, the staff observed and documented the marks and bruises on the 2 year old. The staff also took photos of the injuries and uploaded them to the case file as part of the staff's ongoing safety and risk assessments under the open family assessment. The older children and mother provided explanations of how the two year old child received the injuries, which were perceived by the staff as being accidental in nature, and as not occurring in the mother's home. The staff perceived the mother's demeanor to be non\u00e2\u20ac\u0090defensive and willing to engage with the worker's requests. The mother's protective capacities were assessed and determined to be protective, as the mother verbalized a safety plan regarding the two year old sibling child. The mother was deemed to be a safe caregiver with no immediate danger or safety risk present in her home following the initial face to face home visit. The totality of the information learned in real time by the staff, influenced the staff to not make a child protection report regarding the 2 year olds injuries.\r\nThe staff's many years of experience working in child welfare, along with, interpretation of statute and exercising ethical professional judgement about when mandated reporting is required, influenced the staff to not make a new report. Guided  MN statute 626.556 Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors definitions of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAccidental', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNeglect', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPhysical Abuse', and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThreatened Injury', along with 626.556 Subd. 3 \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPersons mandated to report; persons voluntarily report', contributed to the staff's interpretation of the threshold to report or not report.. Knowledge factors accessed and available to the staff at the time influenced the staff's perception regarding not meeting the statutory definitions; the staff did not have \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a reason to believe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that the 2 year old was a new victim, as that the marks\/bruises on the 2 year old child were not perceived as being a result of suspected maltreatment based on the explanations provided by the mother and older children corroborating statements about the marks\/bruises' accidental nature.\r\nFurthermore, obtaining knowledge by using proven engagement strategies from experience, including not having law enforcement present during the initial face to face home visit, was the staff's priority using the family assessment approach. The staff's ability to gather credible information in order to assess safety and risk, in addition to the family's strengths and needs, was perceived as more successful when law enforcement was not present, and shaped the staff's mental model around credibility of the information the staff learned at the time. \r\n\tAssessing initial safety and risk without law enforcement present in this case enabled the staff to remain involved with the family, and to operate under the presumption that continued monitoring of safety and risk would occur, as the mother was compliant and was willing to cooperate with the staff's requests during the initial home visit. The staff also prioritized using the least invasive approach and least restrictive intervention with the family, which also contributed to the staff's decision not to make a new CP report. The staff did not believe there was a need to control for an immediate safety threat, as the marks\/bruises observed on the 2 year old child did not meet the burden of proof as defined in state statute at that moment in time.  The staff considered needing more time to understand the full extent of the circumstances, and that future work with the family would expose any potential safety and risk to the children while the staff continued work under the open family assessment.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:05:35 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:05:35 pm","id":35756}