{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Permanency not being achieved for the subject child's sibling before turning 18 was influenced by the challenges that existed for local agency staff to locate and find relatives that were able to care for the child.  Not being able to locate relatives for the child was impacted by the mother's location from the agency as mom lived several hours away from the county in which the child had been placed creating difficulties for the agency to engage mom in case planning and permanency planning for this child.  Furthermore, it was staff's perception based upon knowledge shard with them that the child's father had passed away.  As a result the agency did not believe that there were any possible paternal relative placement options for this child either.  Additionally, this child had complex needs that included significant trauma related to sexual exploitation, mental health, and chemical dependency needs.  It was difficult to find a placement that could meet this child's unique needs and this impacted the agency's ability to place her in a lesser restrictive setting including being able to reunifying with her mother and residing with relatives. This coupled with being unable to identify viable maternal and paternal relative placement options impacted the agency's ability to achieve permanency for this youth.\r\nFurther contributing to not achieving permanency in this case is the incongruence that occurs between federal permanency timelines and the time it takes to provide services that will support reunification.  Staff noted that timelines ae not realistic when you have a mother with a long history of chemical dependency problems.  It can take 30 days to obtain a chemical dependency assessment and once this is completed, it can take another 3-4 months then before someone can start inpatient treatment.  Once in treatment, it can be another 3-6 months putting you almost at the 12 month permanency timeline.  Staff indicated that they (permanency timelines) are simply not realistic with the needs of families that struggle with chemical dependency and are not conducive to supporting reunification within federally mandated timelines.  \r\nFurthermore, such timeframes and the time required to achieve of ICWA and MIFPA requirements for active efforts can impact court proceedings which can further influence planning for permanency and therefore permanency being achieved within state and federal timelines.  This can be further compounded by staff's perception that in order to proceed on an ICWA case they must wait for the BIA to respond with Tribal affiliation before proceeding with permanency planning and case proceedings.   \r\nAdditionally impacting permanency not being achieved in this case were communication and consultation barriers that occurred between the county and the tribe on permanency planning for this child. Communication and coordination barriers were influenced by staff turnover both at the county and tribal agency.  Specifically, there is only one tribal child welfare worker at the Tribe that covers both Tribal Child Protection cases within the reservation and off the reservation.  The additional ICWA\/MIFPA related tasks places pressure on Tribal staff that already have limited resources to do the work and have not received additional resources\/funding to ensure they can manage the tasks associated with responding to the ICWA.    \r\nIn cases such as this, court proceedings including the number of court proceedings, the timing of them, and the Judges knowledge of when both ICWA and MIFPA requirements have been met can lengthen the time it takes local agencies and tribal staff to plan for permanency further creating barriers to both achieving permanency and achieving permanency in accordance with state a federal performance measures.  This can be further impacted by the Judges knowledge of ICWA and MIFP, and if ICWA\/MIFPA active efforts have been achieved in a case.  \r\nLastly, it was the local agencies perception in addition to their county attorney's perception that a Qualified Expert Witness (QEW) for the Tribe needed to be present at court in order to move toward permanency.  As a result, the agency believed that they were unable to move towards permanency for the child and continued to delay permanency court proceedings as a result.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","id":33377}