{"report_id":349,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"321","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The worker reported that she initially received this case as a THC positive newborn (family assessment response). She went and completed a face to face with the mother and child and was able to conduct a short, not exhaustive, assessment of safety for the other children, which she identified as safe and healthy. Safe sleep was discussed. When the case came in after the critical incident, it was received by agency after-hours staff, which was just recently added to Ramsey County's work tasks as it was previously contracted out. This new process created gaps in communication and transition between workers. Due to a snowstorm, the after-hours staff was unable to make it to the children's home. The after-hours worker had questioned the need for removal of the children given their ages, and that LE had not identified a need for removal at the time of the incident, but was told that it was agency policy to remove siblings when a child dies and neglect is suspected.\r\n\r\nAfter the attempt to place the children in shelter was hampered by an April snowstorm, there was no further conversation regarding the need to remove the children. The worker provided risk and safety assessments regarding the sibling children during subsequent home visits and did not identify the need to remove. The worker stated she looks at removal of children on a case-to-case basis, however believed it to be typical of other staff to remove other children after a child death and then figure out next steps after that. The worker was unsure if policy existed around placement of remaining children when a child death occurs.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:45:55 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:45:55 pm","id":35145}