{"report_id":299,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The worker was unable to interview the father in response to a domestic violence family assessment response. The worker received the case appointment a day after it was screened in and 4 days after the incident occurred. The worker was unsuccessful in her initial reach out to the mother by phone after receiving the case, requiring her to make an unannounced visit in order to meet the 5 day response guidelines, which are mandated by MN Statute 626.556 as well as DHS guidance. This trade off resulted in the worker prioritizing the face to face contact with the mother to ensure she met timelines with the alleged victims and, thus, being unable to coordinate having both the mother and father present at the visit. Legislatively mandated withhold funds further influenced the worker making that trade-off decision. Within days of the first visit with the mother, another DV related report came in and the father was arrested. The worker sent letters to both the mother and the father and again the worker had to make an unannounced visit to the home at which time the father had already been released from jail and his whereabouts were unknown. This, coupled with the fact that the father didn't have a cell phone, made it extremely difficult for the worker to make any type of contact with him. \r\n\r\nThe State of Minnesota's Federal Program Improvement Plan (PIP) prioritizes both family engagement as well as engaging fathers when working with children and families. In this case, these two priorities were in conflict. Specifically, the nature of domestic violence cases such as this, creates conflict as the worker is placed in a position to decide between engagement and relationship building with the mother, in addition to ensuring child safety, versus putting continued resources into locating and engaging the father, when his whereabouts are unknown. Normative practice in this agency further supported the worker not putting additional resources into locating and meeting with the father as the multiple letters that were sent and the several attempts to call the father were sufficient to fulfill the agency's obligation to engage him. Within three weeks, the child protection assessment was transitioned to case management services, which is much quicker than usual. As a result, the assessment worker assumed that additional resources to engage the father would be undertaken by the case management worker.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:42:17 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:42:17 am","id":31005}