{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Brittany Lochner","Short_Answer__292":"Meg Carriveau","Date__293":"09\/27\/2019","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"8","Multiple_Choice__301":"Hennepin","Short_Answer__303":"Asher","Short_Answer__304":"Pierre Louis","Date__305":"12\/16\/2019","Date__306":"09\/21\/2019","Multiple_Choice__308":"1 Year","Multiple_Choice__309":"2","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Short_Answer__311":"Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"TPR was filed in lieu of a CHIPS petition with compelling reasons.","Free_Text__318":"The case was assigned to the worker on a Monday as this case came in over the weekend and the RRT worker initially got the case. A 72-hour hold had been put on the surviving siblings at the time the worker was assigned the case, which influenced the worker having a court consultation with the county attorney's office within 3 days of being assigned the case. During the court consult the position of the county attorney's office was to file a TPR. The worker, as well as some supervisors and managers did not want to file a TPR. Rather, the agency suggested filing a CHIPS petition and offering the family a case plan. Statute influenced the county attorney's office position to file a TPR as they referred to statute during the discussions the agency had with them as what supported their decision. The worker felt the agency didn't have a say in the decision and had no other option than to sign the TPR petition. The worker stated that she felt forced to take a stance she didn't agree with and would be labeled \u00e2\u20ac\u0153problematic\u00e2\u20ac\u009d had she not signed the petition. It was learned in the debriefings that this case was handled differently than how other cases have been handled and outside the norm of agency practice, as every decision on the case needed to go through the county attorney's office.\r\nThe agency held a Safe and Connected consultation to assist in planning for working with the family (i.e. offering a case plan) and when it was shared with the county attorney's office, the agency was told that a case plan would not be offered to the family, as well as a family group conference as these are case planning services and was told to remove the information from the file.","Free_Text__319":"A TPR being filed in lieu of a CHIPS petition with compelling reason was influenced by the analysis of the critical incident. The analysis of the critical incident was impacted by the fact that criminal charges were filed against both parents, and also factors that the county attorney's office considers when filing a TPR versus a CHIPS with compelling reasons. There is a threshold that needs to be met in order for a CHIPS with compelling reasons to be filed by the county attorney's office rather than a TPR. In this case, from the county attorney's perspective, that threshold was not met. There was an egregious harm maltreatment finding in this case and it supported the county attorney's position to file a TPR as their interpretation of MN Statute regarding a TPR, which states that the child has been subjected to egregious harm as defined in section 260C.007, subd. 14., had been met. Additionally, consultations occurred between social services and the county attorney's office to discuss filing a TPR versus a CHIPS with compelling reasons, which identified differences in what constitutes compelling reasons, which further supported the county attorney's office position to file a TPR. Furthermore, the agency requires approval from two managers, as well as approval from the county attorney for a CHIPS with compelling reasons to be filed.","Short_Answer__320":"The surviving siblings were separated for 4 days when they initially went into placement.","Free_Text__321":"When the sibling children were initially placed in foster care, they went to St. Joe's shelter. Law enforcement did not want the family, including the parents, to know that the kids were going into placement, so when the sibling children were put on a 72-hour hold, they were placed at St. Joe's shelter and from there were placed in separate foster. A relative search did not occur when the siblings were placed in foster care as law enforcement didn't want the family to know that the sibling children were being placed in foster care.","Free_Text__322":"The surviving siblings being separated for 4 days when they initially went into placement was influenced by the fact that law enforcement (LE) put the surviving siblings on a hold, placed them in shelter care, and requested that the agency not inform the parents that the kids were going into placement. Due to this request by LE, a kinship search did not occur because of the request to not inform the parents of the placement. This particular shelter care facility does their own search for foster homes and ended up finding different foster homes, separating the surviving siblings. It is also possible that the foster homes that were found by the shelter care facility had limits of their own (i.e. number of children, gender, etc.), which may contribute to the surviving siblings needing to be separated. Additionally, when law enforcement is involved in an investigation, the agency often times takes direction from them as to not interfere with the criminal investigation, which can support the agency feeling like their hands are tied and their ability to meet certain requirements of an investigation (i.e. interviews, face-to-face contact, kinship discussions, etc.) might be delayed. Furthermore, obtaining information from law enforcement while they still have an active criminal investigation may be difficult as this information is confidential.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"LP #1: \r\nThere is a threshold that needs to be met in order for a CHIPS with compelling reasons to be filed by the county attorney's office rather than a TPR. In this case, from the county attorney's perspective, that threshold was not met. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, consultations occurred between social services and the county attorney's office to discuss filing a TPR versus a CHIPS with compelling reasons, which identified differences in what constitutes compelling reasons, which further supported the county attorney's office position to file a TPR.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"LP #2:\r\nThe surviving siblings being separated for 4 days when they initially went into placement was influenced by the fact that law enforcement (LE) put the surviving siblings on a hold, placed them in shelter care, and requested that the agency not inform the parents that the kids were going into placement. Due to this request by LE, a kinship search did not occur because of the request to not inform the parents of the placement.","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"LP #1:\r\nThere was an egregious harm maltreatment finding in this case and it supported the county attorney's position to file a TPR as their interpretation of MN Statute regarding a TPR, which states that the child has been subjected to egregious harm as defined in section 260C.007, subd. 14., had been met.\r\n\r\nLP #2:\r\nThis particular shelter care facility does their own search for foster homes and ended up finding different foster homes, separating the surviving siblings. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, when law enforcement is involved in an investigation, the agency often times takes direction from them as to not interfere with the criminal investigation, which can support the agency feeling like their hands are tied and their ability to meet certain requirements of an investigation (i.e. interviews, face-to-face contact, kinship discussions, etc.) might be delayed.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}