{"report_id":300,"form_id":"22","user_id":71,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP 1-The decision to place the child in a home when licensing concerns were noted was influenced by federal, state, and local agency policies that prioritize the placement of children with relative caregivers and siblings \r\nwhenever possible.  Minnesota State Statues 260C.212; 260C.221 and Stat. \u00c2\u00a7 260C.212, subd. 2 requires additional due diligence beyond the federal requirements with regards to locating and placing children with relatives as well as placing children with their siblings whenever possible.  Further placing pressure on staff to place children with relatives in cases like this is the metric of relative placement in which is set at 35.7% for agencies to achieve. This placement was not only a relative provider but also had the child's siblings in his care as well.  Additionally, there were no other relatives available to take the subject child and this relative care provider was excited to take the child when he was born and wanted the child in his care. \r\n\r\nFurther supporting the agency's decision to place the child in this home was that this child was Native American and the child's Tribe was recommending placement with this relative. Deferring to the child's Tribe and following their recommendation as well as placement preferences is shaped by both the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act as well as the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act.  As a result of this, the local agency's normative practice is to defer to the Tribe for placement options.  \r\n\r\nLP2-Influencing placing the subject child with the relative provider beyond the providers licensed capacity was the fact that this provider was both a relative placement and all of the child's siblings were placed with this relative.","created_by":71,"updated_by":71,"updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:01:47 pm","created_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:01:47 pm","id":42612}