{"id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":"84","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Kelly Knutson\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Ann Many Birds, Reanna Jacobs, and Yvonne Barett\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"Yes\",\"Multiple_Choice__296\":\"Other Tribe\",\"Short_Answer__297\":\"Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate\",\"Yes_or_No__298\":\"Yes\",\"Multiple_Choice__299\":\"Licensed\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"3\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Stearns\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Maliyah\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Provancial\",\"Date__305\":\"09\\\/04\\\/2002\",\"Date__306\":\"03\\\/29\\\/2019\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"16 Years\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"3\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"Permanency has not been achieved for subject child's sibling\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"Debrief with Child Protection Staff related to this case:\\r\\nStaff debriefed noted that this case was difficult as the subject child's mother was only in this county for a short time once the case opened and quickly left the county.  This created challenges in engaging the mother in her case planning for reunification and identifying relative placement options that would support alternate permanency planning.  Limited relatives were provided to the agency by the mother as possible relative placement options. When relatives were given as placement options it was difficult for the agency staff to get a hold of them to explore if they would be a permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  This agency worked to coordinate case work with the family's out of state Tribe in addition to the other counties in which were serving the mother and subject child's sibling.  Staff noted difficulties in coordinating case work including the achievement of permanency for the subject child's sibling with both the Tribe and other counties.  This included transferring the case to other counties so the family could be better served and getting consultation from the Tribe on other options.  Further creating barriers for staff to provide case management services to the best of their ability was mom's absence and inability to locate and work with mom.  \\r\\nStaff felt that the system created barriers to best serve this family together as the family was working with three counties and her sibling (the subject child) was placed somewhere else across the state.  This created challenges to maintain and preserve this sibling relationship when two counties were involved, and the siblings were placed so far away from one another.  \\r\\nFurther impacting staff's ability to move to permanency with the subject child's sibling was that the Tribal worker was very difficult to get a hold of to provide both consultation on the case and a QEW.  It was staff's perception that a QEW needed to attend a hearing in order for the agency to move to permanency and the Tribe would not respond and assist with a QEW, impacting movement towards permanency.  \\r\\nFurthermore, not having access to the Tribes records or knowing if South Dakota had been involved with the family impacted staff's ability to explore other relatives and\\\/or kin options for the subject child's sibling as permanency options.  \\r\\nAdditionally, the subject child's sibling had significant needs that included mental health, trauma, and chemical dependency.  It was difficult to find a placement facility that could meet this child's needs.  Her high level of needs impacted her being in a lesser restrictive setting including being able to reunifying with her mother and residing with relatives.\\r\\nFurther contributing to not achieving permanency in this case are the timelines.  They are not realistic when you have a mother like this with a long history of chemical dependency problems.  It can take 30 days to obtain a rule 25 assessment and then the waitlist for treatment can be 3-4 months.  Once in treatment, it can be another 3-6 months putting you almost at the 12 month permanency timelines.  Staff indicated that they are simply not realistic with the needs of families such as this one.  \\r\\nStaff indicated challenges occurred in communicating and coordinating with the Tribe regarding if this family were Tribal members, further impacting movement towards permanency in this case.  Communication challenges continued throughout the case influencing the agency's ability to move towards permanency.  \\r\\nThe tribal worker indicated to agency staff that she was not able to be directly involved due to capacity and the children being off the reservation.  When agency asked about other family members as permanency options for the subject child's sibling, the Tribal worker further indicated to staff that the family was not good  Staff noted that it was difficult to obtain other Tribal members names as a result of the limited communication with the Tribal worker.  Staff noted that they would call, email, and fax, and the Tribal worker was very difficult to get a hold of, often not responding, and not appearing at hearings.  This impacted the agency's ability to plan and coordinate permanency planning options for the subject child's sibling.\\t\\r\\nAdditional barriers noted in this case by staff included being able to share information with other counties and with the Tribe.  Due to the number of case load tasks and documentation requirements staff noted limitations in being able to dig up additional history elsewhere that may have identified other permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  \\r\\nTrying to support reunification, the agency attempted to transfer jurisdiction to a county where mom was located, however, that county denied the transfer further contributing to delays in reunification and identifying others that may be able to take the child.  The agency also tried to transfer the case to the county where the subject child was placed so that the siblings could be closer, however, this did not occur and further impacted the agency achieving permanency for the subject child's sibling\\r\\nStaff indicated that when it is difficult to engage with families it can be can create barriers to achieving permanency for children such as in this case.   Contributing to staff feeling like they cannot engage meaningfully is their high caseloads, the requirement to time report at 100% of their time in addition to all of the documentation requirements within SSIS.  \\r\\nFurther supporting permanency not being achieved was that the subject child's sibling did not want to be reunified with her mother and did not want to live with her family as she did not think they would be healthy for her.  When she was 16, staff engaged her in what she wanted for permanency.   She also told staff that she felt supported in her group home and wanted to age out from there.  \\r\\n\\r\\nDebrief with CMH worker related to this case:\\r\\nStaff noted that her primary focus as a CMH worker was to provide support for subject child's sibling's mental health.  Staff reported that the subject child's sibling has a lot of needs including her mental health, chemical dependency and was also a victim of sex trafficking. Due to her age the main focus was on Independent Living.  Staff also indicated that they were following the recommendations of the doctor who recommended long term residential placement to best meet the subject child's needs.  This staff noted that in her role she has worked with very few Native American children.  Staff debriefed indicated that finding placements for children like the subject child's sibling was very difficult due to her needs-particularly around self-harm.  It was staff's perception that she would do well for a while and then sabotage her recovery.  Staff further indicated that she believed that the sibling child did not have a lot of family support but felt supported by the group home staff.  The subject child's sibling has also indicated to staff that she would like to age out of that group home and go on to Job Corps.  It was also noted that there are Native American workers at the group home where the child is and that they reportedly connect the sibling child to some of her cultural practices.  \\r\\nWhen relatives were explored such as the aunt and grandma, they both turned out to not be permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  The CMH worker noted that this was managed by the CP worker.  It was also staff's perception that the requirements for ICWA and relative placements was new for them as CMH staff.  \\r\\nFurther supporting the decision for the subject child's sibling to age out of foster care was that the child was asked what she wanted to do-what she thought was best for her and that those working with her would support that.   Initially, the child indicated (at age 17) that she wanted to try and live with her grandma.  As a result the agency began planning for this, however, shortly after the child decided that she changed her mind and indicated she would like to attend Job Corps.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"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.\",\"Short_Answer__320\":\"Active Efforts in accordance with MIFPA-specific to\",\"Free_Text__321\":\"Debrief with CMH Staff related to this case:\\r\\nStaff indicated that she was working with the subject child through a voluntary placement agreement to support the child's mental health needs.  This was the staff's focus of attention, which is normative practice in children's mental health cases. Staff reported that distance between the child's residential treatment and her mother was significant, creating barriers for visitation and connection.  When the subject child's mother lived closer to the placement she would ride with staff to the residential treatment center to visit with the subject child.  Staff indicated that typical practice within children's mental health cases is that the focus in on the child and that it isn't typical to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when the child is in treatment.  \\r\\nFurther influencing staff not transporting family members is that it is agency policy to not transport family members of clients.  Further impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe and community and cultural connections was that the staff did not perceive this to be her role in both supporting mom and other relatives in both visitation and connection with the subject child as well as engaging the Tribe in the subject child's treatment.  While they (CMH staff) will provide support if needed to parents, they won't hold their hand.  Staff noted that this was what child protection does, however, they were not involved since it was a voluntary placement.  \\r\\nStaff noted that it wasn't really a thought to engage other relatives and they did not think mom's brother could support visits due to his drinking and that grandma was not able to support mom with visits. \\r\\nFurther supporting the decision to not actively engage other known family members was the perception that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors towards the subject child.  Staff's mental model of traditional funeral practices and conditions created by poverty (moving from house to house, eating gas station food, etc.) may have been perceived as neglectful when the child was home with relatives. This may have further impacted the engagement of relatives and other tribal members as supports or placement options for the subject child.  \\r\\nStaff reported trying to recommend the subject child attending a Pow Wow while in placement as the subject child expressed interested in this, however, reported there did not seem to be followed through with. Staff also noted that the community falls short of cultural activities for Native American children.  \\r\\nEngagement with relatives in these cases is typically done for respite purposes, however, this child was in residential placement so respite was not an option and therefore relatives were not engaged.  \\r\\nFurther impacting visits with family was that the subject child was early in her residential programming and that the subject child wasn't ready for a visit.  Additionally, it was staff's perception that mom was not ready for a visit due to her drug use.  \\r\\nStaff also reported that her focus was ensuring that the subject child's mental health needs were met, including disability services, day treatment programming, and mental health services.  Staff noted and that she was also working to get her set up with a CADI waiver as a result of her disability as it is difficult finding group home placements and services for children like this.  Staff also indicated that within the mental health placements that they were following the recommendations from the residential treatment center and the subject child's doctor and that traditional cultural healing practices and engagement with the Tribe were not considered or recommended during those times.  \\r\\nDebrief with CP Staff related to this case:\\r\\nDifficulties occurred engaging the Tribal worker throughout this case and it was difficult to directly connect with the Tribal worker, despite multiple attempts and modes of communication by staff.  As a result the tribal worker did not provide any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther impacting connection with relatives and culture was that the father's side of the family was not considered for connection or placement.  This resulted from family not providing dad's side of the family's information to the agency.  If the family cannot or won't provide this information, it is normative agency practice that they would not seek out any additional information about the father and this side of the family. It was reported that the subject's child's father had also committed suicide.  As a result of it being difficult to engage the Tribe with the case, it was also difficult to seek out additional guidance regarding consultation around cultural practices and Tribal connections for the subject child.  \\r\\n\\r\\nIn addition to the above, the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture.  This can make it challenging to try and engage the Tribe and support the family in connecting with their culture and Tribe if they indicate they are not connected. Staff noted that it can be difficult to engage families with their culture when not connected before they are involved with child protection. Staff also indicated that this was first child protection case ever worked and her first ICWA case.  When this case was assigned to her in 2015 there was not a lot of guidance on what to do in these cases.  \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther contributing to barriers in connecting the subject child to her culture is the lack of Native American foster care homes.\",\"Free_Text__322\":\"Active Efforts, in accordance with ICWA\\\/MIFPA, not being made; specifically to preserving connections to the child's culture and Tribe, as well as active efforts to engage the Tribe and family members as support and as permanency options were influenced by the perception that active efforts requirements are not the responsibility of children's mental health staff.  In cases such as this when it is a voluntary children's mental health case and a contracted children's mental health worker is assigned to the case, it is normative practice that staff's primary focus of attention is to support the mental health needs of the identified child.  This perception is supported by the coordination of guidance around active efforts requirements between DHS's Children's Mental Health Division and DHS's Child Safety and Permanency Division.  Until recently, coordination between Divisions has been minimal with regards to guidance around active efforts requirements.  This has contributed to ambiguity in guidance and staff not wanting to overstep boundaries and roles that can exist between child protection and children's mental health case management within local social service agencies in cases such as this one.  The coordination of guidance around role responsibilities of child protection workers and children's mental health staff has been further impacted by the resources (staff) available at DHS within the Child Safety and Permanency Division and other areas to provide guidance and training around active efforts. \\r\\nFurthermore, it isn't typical practice for contracted children's mental health staff to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when a child is in treatment which constitutes active efforts. Impacting staff not transporting family members is that it can be a contracted provider agency's policy such as in this case to not allow workers to transport family members of clients.  Further impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe, community, and culture was that the staff did not perceive supporting mom and other relatives in both visitation and connection with the subject child, as well as engaging the Tribe in the subject child's treatment to be within their scope of work with Children's Mental Health cases.  Often, Children's Mental Health staff operate with the belief that this is child protection's responsibility.  \\r\\nAn additional influence to active efforts not being made can be staff's comfort level to learn about, explore, and expose themselves to others' cultural frameworks such as in Native American cultures.  This can impact keeping Native American children connected and engaged with cultural activities such as Pow Wows and other cultural practices.  This comfort level is influenced by several factors.  There are often agency\\\/union policies that don't allow attending such activities with clients on the weekends and after traditional business hours as this can pose risks and liabilities to the agency. This can be further supported by not having the space (emotional) to engage in these activities with clients and not having the knowledge of where to locate such activities.  Self-preservation with regards to both personal and professional boundaries can also impact staff engaging in cultural activities with clients that support active efforts.  Staff also noted that their own lack of understanding and not wanting to offend Native American clients further impacts the comfort level to explore cultural differences.  Lastly, staff's own cultural differences and broader sense of culture can further impact exploration of other cultures influencing how Native American children are being supported to stay connected with their Tribe and culture.\\r\\nAlso, there was a perception among staff that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors toward the subject child supporting staff's decision to not actively engage other known family members. Staff's mental model of traditional funeral practices and conditions created by poverty (moving from house to house, eating gas station food, etc.) may have been perceived as neglectful when the child was home with relatives. This may have further impacted the engagement of relatives and other tribal members as supports or placement options for the subject child.\\r\\nAn additional factor that influences when active efforts are not made is that staff have the perception that they are meeting ICWA\\\/MIFPA requirements when the Judge rules that active efforts have been achieved.  Varying levels of understanding and knowledge regarding fulfillment of ICWA\\\/MIFPA requirements by Judges further supports active efforts not being met when the court rules that active efforts have been made when they may not have not been in accordance with ICWA\\\/MIFPA.  Communication gaps between DHS and local agencies has resulted in changes being made that were not fully communicated around active effort requirements have further impacted the implementation and interpretation of active efforts requirements by local agencies.  Funding also influences active efforts not being achieved as additional resources have not been allocated to both the local agencies and Tribes to ensure additional active effort requirements are fulfilled.  For example, there has not been any additional funding provided to Tribes to support Tribal Child Welfare infrastructure in being able to meet the demands of the county agencies state and federal requirements. The additional requirements have placed demands on both the local agencies and Tribes in which both agencies struggle to have the resources to ensure active efforts are met on all cases.  \\r\\n\\r\\nAn additional factor contributing to active efforts not being fulfilled is that staff have less time to complete active effort activities due to needing to prioritize and complete the significant amount documentation for all cases, including the documentation of active efforts.  Redundancies in documentation requirements increase the amount of time needed to document active efforts.  \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther impacting active efforts not being made in this case was that the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice for local agencies is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture.  Different interpretations around active efforts in such circumstances supports why staff perceive once someone says they are not connected to his\\\/her Tribe that staff stop pursing this with the client.    This can make it challenging to try and engage the Tribe and support the family in connecting with their culture and Tribe if they indicate they are not connected. Staff noted that it can be difficult to engage families with their culture when not connected before they are involved with child protection. \\r\\nFurthermore, barriers also occurred in this case in communicating with the Tribe as the Tribal worker is very hard to reach as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  As a result, the local agency was unable to obtain any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  \\r\\n\\r\\nAn additional influence into not being able to achieve active efforts is knowing who to go to at the Tribe and what constitutes active efforts.  This is impacted by local agencies knowledge of ICWA\\\/MIFPA and who the Tribal contacts are for ICWA\\\/MIPFPA cases.  The communication gap from DHS around revisions regarding implementation of state changes has impacted local agencies knowledge of requirements which can create further create challenges on what to do to ensure active efforts are met.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLastly, when this case was assigned to staff in 2015 a knowledge gap existed as this was staff's first child protection case and first ICWA case.  There was limited guidance on ICWA cases during this time, further impacting the achievement of active efforts not being made.\",\"Short_Answer__323\":\"Permanent custody to the agency occurred as permanency for the subject child\",\"Free_Text__324\":\"Debrief with CP Staff related to this case:\\r\\nStaff noted that she had good rapport with the mother and the mother also struggled with mental health issues.  The case was open for almost a year before and as a result the agency was automatically at permanency timelines due to the time that the child was out of home prior to this case opening.   This influenced the agency's decision to move towards permanent custody to the agency as there were not any other options as mom wasn't not fulfilling her case plan requirements and there were not any relatives that could care for the subject child.  Additionally, the Tribe and the mother of the subject child were supportive of this plan, however, they were not in support of a TPR. \\r\\n\\r\\nThe agency, Tribe, and mother believed that this was the best option for the subject child to ensure that she could get her mental and developmental needs met as the subject child would need ongoing assistance in her day to day functioning. This combination (dual diagnoses) made it challenging to locate placements for the subject child\\r\\n\\r\\nIt was also difficult to engage the Tribe throughout the life of the case, despite multiple efforts.  This made it difficult to obtain guidance and consultation from the Tribe throughout the case.  It was difficult to get a response back from the Tribal worker. In order to move towards permanency they ended up sending an affidavit to the Tribe for a QEW as they were never able to get one and needed one to move forward with permanency for the subject child.  Staff also noted that the staff at the Tribe did not seem to care for the mother.  The mother reported to the county worker that she did not feel supported by the tribal worker and tried to request a new worker through the Tribe.  It was reported that the tribal worker did not have anything positive to say about the family and did not provide staff at the county any other relatives or tribal options for permanency.  This further contributed to the difficulty in finding other relatives or tribal members to take the subject child given her complex needs.  \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther impacting the decision to not place with known relatives was that all relatives known to the agency had at some point been abusive or neglectful towards the subject child.    \\r\\n\\r\\nDebrief with CMH Staff related to this case:\\r\\nStaff noted that the subject child had such significant needs and that a relative would not be able to care for her and mom was not able to care for her. They tried a foster care home, however, that was unsuccessful due to the subject child's multiple needs, especially given her history of aggression. \\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\nAdditional Information:\\r\\n\\r\\nReviewers were unable to talk with the Tribal worker or have her or others from the Tribe participate in the mapping.  However, the Tribal Liaison for the Tribe through the Minneapolis American Indian Center indicated that the Tribal worker is very hard to catch because she does the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases.   She's in high demand and kind of a one woman operation.\",\"Free_Text__325\":\"Permanent custody to the agency as permanency for the subject child was influenced by the subject child's overall complex needs. This influenced the agency's decision to move towards permanent custody to the agency as there were not any other options as mom wasn't fulfilling her case plan requirements and had identified that she was not able to care for the subject child.  There were also not any relatives that could care for the subject child due to her emotional, behavior, and developmental needs.  In addition to this, the agency tried a foster care home, however, this placement was not successful due to the subject child's complex and unique needs, especially given her history of aggression.   \\r\\nFurthermore, the agency, the Tribe, the subject child's mother, her GAL and her attorney believed that this was the best permanency option for the subject child to ensure that she could get her emotional, behavioral, and developmental needs met as the subject child would need ongoing assistance for her day to day functioning. This combination (dual diagnoses) made it challenging to locate placements for the subject child.  Further impacting the ability to find a foster care home was that there are very few foster care homes that can take a child with such complex and unique needs.  Lastly, the subject child had identified to staff that she wanted to remain in her current placement.  \\r\\n\\r\\nAs a result of the pressures associated with state and federal statutory permanency timelines, there was a need to move to permanency quickly in this case since statuary timelines had been met in the previous case in which the subject child had been placed out of the home prior to this case opening, automatically placing the agency near the 12 month permanency timeline. Furthermore, while county agencies are bound by the state and federal permanency definitions, Tribal agencies have a different definition of permanency which can also influence the final permanency decision.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLastly, communication and coordination barriers occurred between the Tribe and the local agency. It was difficult to communicate and coordinate with the Tribe throughout the life of the case.  When this happens, it is difficult to obtain guidance and consultation from the Tribe throughout the case on permanency options and planning.  It was difficult to get a response back from the Tribal worker as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  Staff also noted that the staff at the Tribe did not seem to have a positive relationship with the mother and did not provide staff at the county any other relatives or tribal options for permanency.  This further contributed to the difficulty in finding other relatives or tribal members for placement of the subject child given her complex needs.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"LP #1:\\r\\nFurthermore, it was staff's perception based upon knowledge shared 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.\\r\\n\\r\\nThis 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\\n\\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.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #2:\\r\\nActive Efforts, in accordance with ICWA\\\/MIFPA, not being made; specifically to preserving connections to the child's culture and Tribe, as well as active efforts to engage the Tribe and family members as support and as permanency options were influenced by the perception that active efforts requirements are not the responsibility of children's mental health staff.  In cases such as this when it is a voluntary children's mental health case and a contracted children's mental health worker is assigned to the case, it is normative practice that staff's primary focus of attention is to support the mental health needs of the identified child.  This perception is supported by the coordination of guidance around active efforts requirements between DHS's Children's Mental Health Division and DHS's Child Safety and Permanency Division.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurther impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe, community, and culture was that the staff did not perceive supporting mom and other relatives in both visitation and connection with the subject child, as well as engaging the Tribe in the subject child's treatment to be within their scope of work with Children's Mental Health cases.  Often, Children's Mental Health staff operate with the belief that this is child protection's responsibility. \\r\\n\\r\\nAn additional influence to active efforts not being made can be staff's comfort level to learn about, explore, and expose themselves to others' cultural frameworks such as in Native American cultures.  This can impact keeping Native American children connected and engaged with cultural activities such as Pow Wows and other cultural practices.  This comfort level is influenced by several factors.\\r\\n\\r\\nStaff also noted that their own lack of understanding and not wanting to offend Native American clients further impacts the comfort level to explore cultural differences.  Lastly, staff's own cultural differences and broader sense of culture can further impact exploration of other cultures influencing how Native American children are being supported to stay connected with their Tribe and culture.\\r\\nAlso, there was a perception among staff that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors toward the subject child supporting staff's decision to not actively engage other known family members. Staff's mental model of traditional funeral practices and conditions created by poverty (moving from house to house, eating gas station food, etc.) may have been perceived as neglectful when the child was home with relatives. This may have further impacted the engagement of relatives and other tribal members as supports or placement options for the subject child.\\r\\nAn additional factor that influences when active efforts are not made is that staff have the perception that they are meeting ICWA\\\/MIFPA requirements when the Judge rules that active efforts have been achieved.  Varying levels of understanding and knowledge regarding fulfillment of ICWA\\\/MIFPA requirements by Judges further supports active efforts not being met when the court rules that active efforts have been made when they may not have not been in accordance with ICWA\\\/MIFPA.\\r\\n\\r\\nDifferent interpretations around active efforts in such circumstances supports why staff perceive once someone says they are not connected to his\\\/her Tribe that staff stop pursing this with the client.    This can make it challenging to try and engage the Tribe and support the family in connecting with their culture and Tribe if they indicate they are not connected. Staff noted that it can be difficult to engage families with their culture when not connected before they are involved with child protection. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP #3:\\r\\nFurthermore, the agency, the Tribe, the subject child's mother, her GAL and her attorney believed that this was the best permanency option for the subject child to ensure that she could get her emotional, behavioral, and developmental needs met as the subject child would need ongoing assistance for her day to day functioning.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"LP #1:\\r\\nIt 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\\n\\r\\nLP #2:\\r\\nThe coordination of guidance around role responsibilities of child protection workers and children's mental health staff has been further impacted by the resources (staff) available at DHS within the Child Safety and Permanency Division and other areas to provide guidance and training around active efforts.\\r\\n\\r\\nFunding also influences active efforts not being achieved as additional resources have not been allocated to both the local agencies and Tribes to ensure additional active effort requirements are fulfilled.  For example, there has not been any additional funding provided to Tribes to support Tribal Child Welfare infrastructure in being able to meet the demands of the county agencies state and federal requirements. The additional requirements have placed demands on both the local agencies and Tribes in which both agencies struggle to have the resources to ensure active efforts are met on all cases.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #3:\\r\\nPermanent custody to the agency as permanency for the subject child was influenced by the subject child's overall complex needs. This influenced the agency's decision to move towards permanent custody to the agency as there were not any other options as mom wasn't fulfilling her case plan requirements and had identified that she was not able to care for the subject child.  There were also not any relatives that could care for the subject child due to her emotional, behavior, and developmental needs.  In addition to this, the agency tried a foster care home, however, this placement was not successful due to the subject child's complex and unique needs, especially given her history of aggression.\\r\\n\\r\\nThis combination (dual diagnoses) made it challenging to locate placements for the subject child.  Further impacting the ability to find a foster care home was that there are very few foster care homes that can take a child with such complex and unique needs.  Lastly, the subject child had identified to staff that she wanted to remain in her current placement.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__355\":\"LP #1:\\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. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP #2:\\r\\nCommunication gaps between DHS and local agencies has resulted in changes being made that were not fully communicated around active effort requirements have further impacted the implementation and interpretation of active efforts requirements by local agencies.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurthermore, barriers also occurred in this case in communicating with the Tribe as the Tribal worker is very hard to reach as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  As a result, the local agency was unable to obtain any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  \\r\\n\\r\\nAn additional influence into not being able to achieve active efforts is knowing who to go to at the Tribe and what constitutes active efforts.  This is impacted by local agencies knowledge of ICWA\\\/MIFPA and who the Tribal contacts are for ICWA\\\/MIPFPA cases.  The communication gap from DHS around revisions regarding implementation of state changes has impacted local agencies knowledge of requirements which can create further create challenges on what to do to ensure active efforts are met.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #3:\\r\\nLastly, communication and coordination barriers occurred between the Tribe and the local agency. It was difficult to communicate and coordinate with the Tribe throughout the life of the case.  When this happens, it is difficult to obtain guidance and consultation from the Tribe throughout the case on permanency options and planning.  It was difficult to get a response back from the Tribal worker as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  Staff also noted that the staff at the Tribe did not seem to have a positive relationship with the mother and did not provide staff at the county any other relatives or tribal options for permanency.  This further contributed to the difficulty in finding other relatives or tribal members for placement of the subject child given her complex needs.\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__357\":\"LP #2:\\r\\nFurther impacting active efforts not being made in this case was that the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  \\r\\n\\r\\nLastly, when this case was assigned to staff in 2015 a knowledge gap existed as this was staff's first child protection case and first ICWA case.  There was limited guidance on ICWA cases during this time, further impacting the achievement of active efforts not being made\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"LP #1:\\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 are 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 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.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #2:\\r\\nActive Efforts, in accordance with ICWA\\\/MIFPA, not being made; specifically to preserving connections to the child's culture and Tribe, as well as active efforts to engage the Tribe and family members as support and as permanency options were influenced by the perception that active efforts requirements are not the responsibility of children's mental health staff.  In cases such as this when it is a voluntary children's mental health case and a contracted children's mental health worker is assigned to the case, it is normative practice that staff's primary focus of attention is to support the mental health needs of the identified child.  This perception is supported by the coordination of guidance around active efforts requirements between DHS's Children's Mental Health Division and DHS's Child Safety and Permanency Division.  Until recently, coordination between Divisions has been minimal with regards to guidance around active efforts requirements.  This has contributed to ambiguity in guidance and staff not wanting to overstep boundaries and roles that can exist between child protection and children's mental health case management within local social service agencies in cases such as this one.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurthermore, it isn't typical practice for contracted children's mental health staff to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when a child is in treatment which constitutes active efforts. Impacting staff not transporting family members is that it can be a contracted provider agency's policy such as in this case to not allow workers to transport family members of clients.\\r\\n\\r\\nAn additional influence to active efforts not being made can be staff's comfort level to learn about, explore, and expose themselves to others' cultural frameworks such as in Native American cultures.  This can impact keeping Native American children connected and engaged with cultural activities such as Pow Wows and other cultural practices.  This comfort level is influenced by several factors.    \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther impacting active efforts not being made in this case was that the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice for local agencies is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP #3:\\r\\nAs a result of the pressures associated with state and federal statutory permanency timelines, there was a need to move to permanency quickly in this case since statuary timelines had been met in the previous case in which the subject child had been placed out of the home prior to this case opening, automatically placing the agency near the 12 month permanency timeline. Furthermore, while county agencies are bound by the state and federal permanency definitions, Tribal agencies have a different definition of permanency which can also influence the final permanency decision.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"LP #1:\\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 are 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 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. \\r\\n\\r\\nCommunication 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.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #2:\\r\\nAn additional factor contributing to active efforts not being fulfilled is that staff have less time to complete active effort activities due to needing to prioritize and complete the significant amount documentation for all cases, including the documentation of active efforts.  Redundancies in documentation requirements increase the amount of time needed to document active efforts.\\r\\n\\r\\nLP #3:\\r\\nAs a result of the pressures associated with state and federal statutory permanency timelines, there was a need to move to permanency quickly in this case since statuary timelines had been met in the previous case in which the subject child had been placed out of the home prior to this case opening, automatically placing the agency near the 12 month permanency timeline. Furthermore, while county agencies are bound by the state and federal permanency definitions, Tribal agencies have a different definition of permanency which can also influence the final permanency decision.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"0\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"84","updated_by":71,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:05:29 pm","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Maliyah Provancial"}