{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":71,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"325","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Permanent custody to the agency as permanency for the subject child was influenced by the subject child's overall complex needs. This influenced the agency's decision to move towards permanent custody to the agency as there were not any other options as mom wasn't fulfilling her case plan requirements and had identified that she was not able to care for the subject child.  There were also not any relatives that could care for the subject child due to her emotional, behavior, and developmental needs.  In addition to this, the agency tried a foster care home, however, this placement was not successful due to the subject child's complex and unique needs, especially given her history of aggression.   \r\nFurthermore, the agency, the Tribe, the subject child's mother, her GAL and her attorney believed that this was the best permanency option for the subject child to ensure that she could get her emotional, behavioral, and developmental needs met as the subject child would need ongoing assistance for her day to day functioning. This combination (dual diagnoses) made it challenging to locate placements for the subject child.  Further impacting the ability to find a foster care home was that there are very few foster care homes that can take a child with such complex and unique needs.  Lastly, the subject child had identified to staff that she wanted to remain in her current placement.  \r\n\r\nAs a result of the pressures associated with state and federal statutory permanency timelines, there was a need to move to permanency quickly in this case since statuary timelines had been met in the previous case in which the subject child had been placed out of the home prior to this case opening, automatically placing the agency near the 12 month permanency timeline. Furthermore, while county agencies are bound by the state and federal permanency definitions, Tribal agencies have a different definition of permanency which can also influence the final permanency decision.  \r\n\r\nLastly, communication and coordination barriers occurred between the Tribe and the local agency. It was difficult to communicate and coordinate with the Tribe throughout the life of the case.  When this happens, it is difficult to obtain guidance and consultation from the Tribe throughout the case on permanency options and planning.  It was difficult to get a response back from the Tribal worker as her availability is limited due to the scope of responsibility placed on her.  She is responsible for the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases and is therefore in high demand.  Staff also noted that the staff at the Tribe did not seem to have a positive relationship with the mother and did not provide staff at the county any other relatives or tribal options for permanency.  This further contributed to the difficulty in finding other relatives or tribal members for placement of the subject child given her complex needs.","created_by":71,"updated_by":71,"updated_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:05:30 pm","created_at":"6\/1\/2021 2:05:30 pm","id":42859}