{"id":256,"form_id":"22","user_id":"90","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Ryan Hartneck\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Brenda Mahoney\",\"Date__293\":\"07\\\/18\\\/2016\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"4\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Sherburne\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Billy\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Chapman\",\"Date__305\":\"10\\\/30\\\/2013\",\"Date__306\":\"08\\\/30\\\/2015\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"1 Year\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Mother's partner\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"1.\\tNo safety planning occurred for the remaining siblings of the subject child\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"The agency's on-call social worker took the initial call regarding the child's injuries. LE was at the hospital that night and conducted initial interviews. The next morning, she was assigned to the case and reached out to LE to coordinate the interviews she needed to do. She was able to speak with the child's mother and also biological father. The mother's friend, who was caring for the child, was hospitalized himself after hyper-ventilating when hearing of the child's injuries. The remaining children were not interviewed by LE the night of the child's injuries, but did occur later in conjunction with the CP investigation interviews. The CP worker tended to the mother's needs during the child's treatment at the hospital, indicating this was very important. The child died the night after the worker made contact at the hospital. The remaining children were not identified as needing to be placed on a 72 hour hold by LE. The worker indicated that when children are not placed on a 72 hour hold by law enforcement, parents can make arrangements for the care of their children. Safety planning specific to the remaining children did not occur in this case after the children went with the grandparent. She reported that when discussing the family arrangement, it was agreed that the maternal grandmother would be the most stable location for the kids to be. She indicated that due to the children being in a stable place, her focus was turned to finding out who had injured the subject child. The worker further shared that at the time of the child's death, the norms were that they would make their safety assessment at the time of the hold\\\/family arrangement and then allow that placement to take place. Any safety planning would have been informal\\\/verbal in nature at that time. \\r\\n\\r\\nAfter interviews with the remaining children, there were significant discrepancies between their statements and the mother's friend's statements and interviews with other possible caregivers did not indicate that they were the source of the child's injuries. \\r\\nA significant issue in the investigation of the case was identified by the worker as being the conflicting opinions on medical professionals (child abuse specialist and ME) regarding timing of the injuries as well as the nature in which the injuries were sustained. While both agreed it was a homicide, the ME believed that the brain injury could have been a result of a fall off a couch. The agency made the maltreatment determination against the mother's friend as interviews indicated that prior caregivers were not the source of the child's injuries, as well as the medical professionals indicating the injuries that the child sustained were inflicted by another person. Delays in making the maltreatment determination were in part due to the time it took to see if the medical professionals would find agreement.\\r\\n\\r\\nAdditional barriers to completing work tasks included her caseload, which was over 60 investigations at the time. There were three investigators then and that was not enough to cover the number of assessments assigned. Additional barriers noted were limited amount of time available for case consultation (both of the worker and supervisor) as well as a general sense in the agency that when there are \\u00e2\\u20ac\\u0153big\\u00e2\\u20ac\\u009d cases, that there is no chatter going on about them, that it was the worker's issue to work it out.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"Child protection investigation safety planning norms influenced the child protection worker's decision to not conduct safety planning for the sibling children at the time the family arrangement was made by law enforcement. Common practice in this agency are for child protection workers to trust law enforcement's assessment of safety as law enforcement are the only ones able to place children on hold, which guides the need for the agency to conduct safety planning. The social worker presumed the grandmother was a safe caregiver as the family arrangement with the grandmother, who lived 2 hours away, had already been decided as safe by law enforcement for the sibling children. Additionally, it is common practice to not safety plan when the perpetrator does not reside in the same home since the perpetrator does not have access to the child(ren).\\r\\nThere were changes in government regulation, such as the implementation of the Governor's Task Force recommendations and Governor's Order (directive), which had recently been put into practice. These directives included implementation of a Rapid Consultation line and creation of a DHS CP Screen-out Review Team. This screening oversight by DHS resulted in increased screened in reports by the agency and thus, an increase in worker caseloads. This increase resulted in prioritization of case duties other than safety planning in this case, as safety had already been assessed by law enforcement In addition to this, there was heightened media coverage on DHS policy changes, influencing defensive practices by the agency which likely supported the agency in screening in cases out of fear of liability. \\r\\nFurther influencing the worker to not safety plan was that during this time, limited funding for CP positions impacted the local agency's overall staffing levels. This led to an increase in caseload for staff resulting in the investigator carrying 60 open cases during this timeframe.  As a result, the worker prioritized other case duties over safety planning. The high level of case tasks required for each case impacts the ability to close cases, which compounds the amount of case tasks. This further decreased the amount of time the worker had available to complete all the necessary case tasks on each investigation. Additionally, the worker had limited availability for supervisor consultation as the supervisor was working cases as well. This reduced time available to consult regarding case duties, such as safety planning. Peer consultation is usually available on cases, but with egregious cases, chatter between coworkers is limited, so peer consultation is limited. This limited peer consultation also impacts the worker's ability to get feedback on case planning\\\/duties etc.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"Common practice in this agency are for child protection workers to trust law enforcement's assessment of safety as law enforcement are the only ones able to place children on hold, which guides the need for the agency to conduct safety planning. The social worker presumed the grandmother was a safe caregiver as the family arrangement with the grandmother, who lived 2 hours away, had already been decided as safe by law enforcement for the sibling children.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"These directives included implementation of a Rapid Consultation line and creation of a DHS CP Screen-out Review Team. This screening oversight by DHS resulted in increased screened in reports by the agency and thus, an increase in worker caseloads. This increase resulted in prioritization of case duties other than safety planning in this case, as safety had already been assessed by law enforcement In addition to this, there was heightened media coverage on DHS policy changes, influencing defensive practices by the agency which likely supported the agency in screening in cases out of fear of liability.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__361\":\"Further influencing the worker to not safety plan was that during this time, limited funding for CP positions impacted the local agency's overall staffing levels.\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__365\":\"Additionally, the worker had limited availability for supervisor consultation as the supervisor was working cases as well.\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"0\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"90","updated_by":81,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:32:25 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Billy Chapman"}