{"report_id":350,"form_id":"22","user_id":92,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"357","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP1: Best practices prescribed for these types of cases and actual support received by CP from the CA was not congruent across the systems when CP petitioned for TPR, as the CA was not certain that criteria for TPR was met, and made the decision to not file for TPR. Both the CA and CP staff had little longevity with staff experience, and a knowledge gap presented difficulties integrating knowledge into practice, influencing the trajectory of case practice. There is a lot of information to take in when learning new roles in both professions, where professionals experience a window of time called a learning curve. \r\nIn regard to the CA working a new role, there is little assistance from other attorney's to mentor each other, and their workload influences the amount of time available for learning and interpreting laws, as in the predatory offender and egregious harm statues involved in this case.  CP's mental model was that the new CA was not using the green book to guide decisions either and staff perceived the absence of requisite knowledge contributed to the CA not filing for TPR in accordance with statutes.","created_by":92,"updated_by":92,"updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:37:30 pm","created_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:37:30 pm","id":43679}