{"report_id":286,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"355","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"1.) CP and County Attorney Office and Judge barrier exists impacting CP's ability to make face to face with sibling children efficiently and timely. \r\nConsidering child protection's mental model shaped from past experience (to not get court orders granted which they had requested in the past), child protection staff utilized a workaround\/adaptation to their approach used with the children and family in order to engage and assess the safety of the sibling children, contributing to staff observing\/interviewing the sibling children two weeks before the investigation closed. \r\n2.)  Impact to trajectory of CP practice was evidenced significantly by LE not cross reporting the critical incident to CP. \r\nLaw enforcement did not perceive a need to cross report the accidental critical incident to child protection, nor did other mandated reporters who had contact with the family at the time of the incident. Law enforcement did not have safety concerns for the sibling children and they did not pursue an emergency 72 hour hold at the time of the critical incident. Law enforcement considered the grandparents to be safe caregivers and the sibling children were presumed safe in their care. Differing perspectives exist between law enforcement and child protection about each of their roles at times when critical incidents occur. The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing. \r\n\r\nThe parents were not trusting of child protection's involvement when child protection made contact with the family, as their involvement was perceived as conflicting to what law enforcement had communicated to them about not opening a criminal investigation. When child protection staff attempted to engage with the family, they were met with resistance. The grandparents refused child protection access to the sibling children. Helping the family understand the role differences between child protection and law enforcement was difficult for the staff. The family's confusion and resistance impacted staff's ability to observe\/interview the sibling children in a timely manner.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:22:40 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:22:40 am","id":30142}