Narrative #1: Further contributing to this was the fact that typical practice of obtaining all background data on families is done by the investigation unit.  As a result, the field staff did not look for this information as it was outside typical field practice to do so.

Narrative #1: Further supporting this decision to place in a home where the caregiver had a prior maltreatment determination of sexual abuse was that there was a family arrangement in place with this father prior to agency involvement.  This decision was supported by federal, state, and local agency policy that encourages agencies to engage and place with fathers whenever possible. 

Narrative #2: Prior to the agency being involved this was a family arranged plan and the father was both cooperative with the agency and was considered a relative under Minnesota State Statute 260C.212 subd 2 – placement decisions based on best interests of the child (a) (2). The 13 year child also considered father #2 to be his father. The agency was working to engage the fathers in this case as a result of recent pressures to engage fathers whenever possible.  Further supporting this decision was the need to keep all siblings together and with a relative if possible which is influenced by both state and federal guidance around placement with relatives and sibling placement; specifically, Minnesota State Statute 260C.212 subd 2 (d). 

Narrative #3: Further supporting the TLC with this father during the time it was opened for an investigation was the push to engage fathers at the, federal, state, and local levels.

Narrative #4: She also noted that there is a significant amount of documentation required on each case.  A checklist was developed based upon the additional documentation requirements established by the Department of Humans Services (i.e. BIA, ICWA, MIFPA, CMR new click cross report to law enforcement, Help Me Grow, SEY) .  This is further impacted by the constant changes in documentation that are required for investigations per DHS's guidelines.

Narrative #4: Further impacting staff not identifying and documenting criminal and child protection history were inconsistent practices within the local agency, among workers regarding the process of locating criminal and child protection history for all parents in SSIS and MGA. 

Narrative #4: Additionally, creating systemic barriers to identifying documented information within SSIS related to a father is that the local agency opens cases in SSIS under the mother, which is consistent with normative practice across the state.

Narrative #5: Normative practice is to look up each adult associated with a case in SSIS and MGA; however, varying practices existed across units within this agency, impacting how and when this information is discovered.  

