{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"JoLynn Sundstrom","Date__293":"03\/13\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"4","Multiple_Choice__301":"Stearns","Short_Answer__303":"Syncere","Short_Answer__304":"Moore","Date__305":"10\/15\/2015","Date__306":"03\/09\/2016","Multiple_Choice__308":"5 Months","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"1.\tFace to face contact with alleged offender never occurred","Free_Text__318":"The child protection investigator participated in the debriefing and shared the following information.\r\n\r\nAfter receiving intake of the child's fatality, the CP worker contacted LE to coordinate the investigation. CP worker indicated that at that time, he was asked to hold off on interviewing the child's mother. Due to the child's cousin's being present at the time of the child's death, the CP worker reached out to a neighboring Human Services Agency to connect with a worker that was working with that family. Safety of those children were assessed and ensured by that agency. In regards to coordination between CP and LE, the worker indicated that outside of this case, it usually occurs. The worker went on to state that there were multiple LE investigators on the case as there was a LE investigator that had established a relationship with the child's mother in the past and they were coordinating this between themselves. \r\n\r\nThe worker indicated that delays in finding maltreatment on the case was partially due to the inability to obtain the ME report. When LE obtained the report, he was informed by them that they were unsure if they could share the report with CP. The worker never made contact with the mother, however used the LE interview with her to complete his investigation. To his knowledge, LE had one interview with her and never made contact with her thereafter. It is believed that she left the state.","Free_Text__319":"Face to face contact not occurring with the alleged offender was influenced by state statute 626.556 Subd. 10 (b)(5), and Admin Rule 9560.0220 Subp. 4 which allows the local agency to defer to law enforcement on making contact with an alleged offender during an open criminal investigation. As a result of this, the local agency honored law enforcement's request to delay the interview and face to face contact with the alleged offender in this case as to not interfere with the current criminal investigation.  \r\nFurthermore, the multiple tasks required by law enforcement during an investigation contributed to a lengthy investigation that delayed when law enforcement allowed the local agency to proceed with making face to face contact with the alleged offender. At the time the agency was allowed to make contact with the alleged offender, the offender was no longer available as a result of moving out of state; however, the agency made multiple attempts to contact the alleged offender prior to learning of their move out of state. \r\nAdditional contributing factors that further impacted the agency's decision to delay contact with the alleged offender included the local agency not being involved in law enforcement's multidisciplinary team (MDT) regarding the planning of this investigation. Local agencies are not typically part of law enforcement MDT's. Non-normative practices between the local agency and law enforcement further supported the alleged offender not being seen. Normative practice in these investigations would include coordination in conducting a joint interview and ongoing communication throughout the investigation.","Short_Answer__320":"2.\tPrevious concerns of the condition of the child's home not reported to child protection","Free_Text__321":"No debriefing took place on this Learning Point.","Free_Text__322":"The decision to not report the condition of the child's home was influenced by the public health worker's experience of child protection reports not being screened in after a report is made.  Further supporting the decision to not report the condition of the child's home was the public health worker's interpretation of state statute that governs mandated reporting for suspected child abuse and neglect. She did not believe that the conditions met the threshold to report. The public health worker's understanding of state statute was influenced by the subjective statutory language within 626.556 Subd. 3(a) that states \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Has reason to believe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a child is being neglected and\/or abused.\r\n\r\nThe public health worker's interpretation of state statute was impacted by their awareness of where to access available trainings within the agency. Quality and consistency of these trainings also varied, further supporting her reason to not seek them out. Per state statute, local agencies are responsible for providing mandated reporter training within their agency; however, multiple competing priorities, such as the need to get day-to-day work done to serve clients and to fulfill their job duties can make this statutory requirement burdensome for the local agency.","Multiple_Choice__346":"3","Free_Text__347":"Learning Point #2: Further supporting the decision to not report the condition of the child's home was the public health worker's interpretation of state statute that governs mandated reporting for suspected child abuse and neglect. She did not believe that the conditions met the threshold to report.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"Learning Point #1: Additional contributing factors that further impacted the agency's decision to delay contact with the alleged offender included the local agency not being involved in law enforcement's multidisciplinary team (MDT) regarding the planning of this investigation.","Multiple_Choice__356":"1","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"Learning Point #1: Face to face contact not occurring with the alleged offender was influenced by state statute 626.556 Subd. 10 (b)(5), and Admin Rule 9560.0220 Subp. 4 which allows the local agency to defer to law enforcement on making contact with an alleged offender during an open criminal investigation.\r\n\r\nLearning Point #2: The public health worker's understanding of state statute was influenced by the subjective statutory language within 626.556 Subd. 3(a) that states \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Has reason to believe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a child is being neglected and\/or abused.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}