The subject child spent a majority of her life in out-of-home placement with her maternal grandmother.  Prior to the agency getting involved with the family, the subject child and her 11-year old and 14-year old siblings had spent approximately 261 days in out-of-home placement in a different county.  When the agency got involved with the family, the children were immediately placement with their maternal grandmother due to a violation of the No Contact Order between the children and the mother's boyfriend.  The maternal grandmother completed the licensing process through Chisago County.  Upon receiving the case, the agency's initial thoughts were that this was going to be an automatic Termination of Parental Rights based on the length of time the children had already been in out-of-home placement and permanency timelines.  The worker consulted with her supervisor as to why they were going to make the mother “jump through hoopsâ€ if the children were already at permanency.  The plan was for the agency to develop case plans for each of the parents and work towards reunification with the mother.  The concurrent permanency plan for the subject child was for a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to the maternal grandmother and if that was not possible, then a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to the paternal grandmother.  The concurrent permanency plan for the 11-year old and the 14-year old was for a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to their father.

After reviewing the previous county's case plans and engagement with the family, the agency felt the family was not given an opportunity to work a case plan and felt the family deserved a chance at reunification.  Knowing the children were at permanency, the agency began working towards reunification.  There were numerous conversations with the mother about transferring custody of the children to their concurrent permanency options, but the mother was resistant.  The mother agreed to transfer custody of the subject child to the maternal grandmother, but the near fatal incident occurred and that took priority.  The agency had frequent conversation about filing a Termination of Parental Rights; however wanted to wait until the mother completed a psychological evaluation and they received the results, which occurred in March 2017 and the results were received in April 2017.

The worker talked with the subject child about where she would like to live in the event she couldn't be reunified and she identified her paternal grandmother (which ultimately occurred) because she didn't think her maternal grandmother could care for her to due to her own health issues.  Even though there were delays in permanency for the children, the agency acknowledges that the children are in the most appropriate settings.