Several factors influenced the sibling children being observed/interviewed two weeks before the CP investigation closed. Law enforcement had responded initially to the near fatal drowning scene and did not place the subject child or sibling children on a 72 hour hold. They were viewing this incident as a tragic accident and did not pursue criminal charges or open a criminal investigation. It was the perspective of the worker that law enforcement did not want to add “insult to injuryâ€ as no one knew if the subject child would survive influencing the decision to observed/interview the sibling children two weeks before CP investigation closed was that law enforcement had also not determined the maternal grandparents to be unsafe caregivers, therefore the sibling children were presumed safe with them.  There was no imminent reasons to “forceâ€ the family to have the sibling children interviewed/observed sooner.  By engaging the family at their pace and tone, CP was eventually at least able to get some information from the sibling.  Typically law enforcement is driving the CP investigations, but they were not in this case.  Since law enforcement had not placed a 72 hour hold on the children, allowed them to go with maternal grandparents, and that there was not a criminal investigation opened, understanding child protection's role was different for this case than normal and “harder to wrap his/her head aroundâ€. Not having law enforcement involvement in this case posed challenges in this CP investigation. Law enforcement told the parent's that they were not pursuing criminal charges on the scene, so when CP arrived at the hospital to interview and see the subject child, there was greater backlash from the parents. It was hard to explain to the family the role differences between CP and Law Enforcement and that although the standards for criminal charges had not been met, the standard for a child protection investigation for the suspected maltreatment had been met. 
Since there was not court involvement the investigators role became one of engaging the family in the “least invasive way possibleâ€ in order to gather the best information possible.  Engaging the family this way mitigated the risk of the family being non-cooperative and the local agency not having the authority to stay involved without a court order. 
The parents were often traveling to hospitals outside of their county to be with the subject child, so they were not readily available or trusting of what was happening when they were not around.  The agency was also mindful that the parents were facing “end of lifeâ€ decisions, and not knowing from day to day if the subject child was going to survive.  It was an intense reality for them and the local agency gave them time to work through that.
Regarding the sibling children, the family was initially not compliant with allowing the local agency access to them for observation and interview. Child Protection used engagement strategies, and provided the family options for how the verbal sibling child could be interviewed, and infant be observed. The maternal grandparents and parents to the children did finally allow the interview and observation to take place, on the terms that the maternal grandfather would be allowed to sit in with the sibling child during the interview.
The CP investigator consulted with the supervisor at multiple points in the investigation. The supervisor was available when needed for consultation and the investigator felt safe in openly discussing the strengths and needs of the case with the supervisor. He/she trusted the advice and direction given by the supervisor. Maltreatment was determined for Neglect – Inadequate supervision to the subject child by the mother and father.  Maltreatment was also determined for an added allegation of Neglect - Failure to protect from serious endangerment to the subject child by his mother and father. Mother, father, and sibling child, expressed the mother and father were not present with the subject child when he experienced the near fatal drowning. The local agency decided to proceed in transitioning to case management from investigation by preparing a CHIPS petition, noting the determination of maltreatment, circumstances of the near fatal incident, and other risk factors, including the vulnerability of the subject child due to high medical needs.