{"report_id":257,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"321","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The critical incident occurred after 4:30pm. A contracted agency who provides after hours coverage responded to the hospital where law enforcement had also responded.  The after-hours worker made timely face to face with the alleged victim child, and prepared a report of their response and safety assessment to pass on to the investigator to be assigned in the morning. Law enforcement completed many interviews for their criminal investigation that evening, and a neurologist evaluating the child, had also worked a case in 2014 which had profound similarities to the injuries of this child's case. Ironically the alleged offender of the 2014 case was the same alleged offender in this case. A thorough CP investigation was completed with including many adult, child, and collateral interviews. An opportunity to interview with child protection was provided to the alleged offender which he declined. Law enforcement and Child protection accessed and shared investigative reports with one another, and telephone calls occurred between the agencies as they spoke about how to proceed, and sharing information learned, highlighting key concerns, and any topics that they could assist one another with, or request information or questions be asked based on scheduled interviews yet to occur prior to them happening. The interviews were conducted separate and apart from one another because of the dynamics of this case. The role of child protection being different than that of law enforcement for this case was especially noted. Circumstances, such as the incident occurring after hours, it wasn't a sexual abuse case, child protection focused more on the physical and mental health of the mother, and the impact around the subject child's worsening physical condition\/impending death. The consideration for safety and risk assessment interviews needing to take more time than what law enforcement would need, and joining for investigation interviews would not benefit law enforcement. The trajectory of law enforcement's investigation and the trajectory of the child protection investigation unfolded as each discipline gathered relevant information particular to their work areas purpose. Child Protection prioritized being trauma informed and client centered and solution focused for the mother, surviving child, and tending to the grief and loss around the end of life decision the mother was facing at the moment in time. Also noted was the cautiousness around reliability of information the mother could reasonably provide to the agency and\/or information the mother would be able to process from the agency. It was important to use engagement skills in order to resonate a balanced working relationship between child protection and the mother, as she was carrying shock, denial, anger, fear, and resentment towards child protection during her grief stricken emotional state. The agency approached the CP investigation in a non-punitive way with regard to ensuring child safety of the surviving child and assisting the mother and surviving child with supports and coping with grief and loss. A CHIPS opened in Juvenile Court, not to be punitive, but rather to be supportive of the mother and her decisions.  The agency norms of collaborating with law enforcement varies case by case, depending on many variables and dynamics.  In this case, the process of the investigation went as expected due to the nature of how each agency's work with the participants in the family unfolded over time, and the communication that was shared between each agency.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:36:19 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:36:19 am","id":28152}