{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP #1:\r\nFurther contributing to not achieving permanency in this case is the incongruence that occurs between federal permanency timelines and the time it takes to provide services that will support reunification.  Staff noted that timelines are not realistic when you have a mother with a long history of chemical dependency problems.  It can take 30 days to obtain a chemical dependency assessment and once this is completed, it can take another 3-4 months then before someone can start inpatient treatment.  Once in treatment, it can be another 3-6 months putting you almost at the 12 month permanency timeline.  Staff indicated that they (permanency timelines) are simply not realistic with the needs of families that struggle with chemical dependency and are not conducive to supporting reunification within federally mandated timelines.  \r\nFurthermore, such timeframes and the time required to achieve ICWA and MIFPA requirements for active efforts can impact court proceedings which can further influence planning for permanency and therefore permanency being achieved within state and federal timelines.\r\n\r\nLP #2:\r\nActive Efforts, in accordance with ICWA\/MIFPA, not being made; specifically to preserving connections to the child's culture and Tribe, as well as active efforts to engage the Tribe and family members as support and as permanency options were influenced by the perception that active efforts requirements are not the responsibility of children's mental health staff.  In cases such as this when it is a voluntary children's mental health case and a contracted children's mental health worker is assigned to the case, it is normative practice that staff's primary focus of attention is to support the mental health needs of the identified child.  This perception is supported by the coordination of guidance around active efforts requirements between DHS's Children's Mental Health Division and DHS's Child Safety and Permanency Division.  Until recently, coordination between Divisions has been minimal with regards to guidance around active efforts requirements.  This has contributed to ambiguity in guidance and staff not wanting to overstep boundaries and roles that can exist between child protection and children's mental health case management within local social service agencies in cases such as this one.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it isn't typical practice for contracted children's mental health staff to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when a child is in treatment which constitutes active efforts. Impacting staff not transporting family members is that it can be a contracted provider agency's policy such as in this case to not allow workers to transport family members of clients.\r\n\r\nAn additional influence to active efforts not being made can be staff's comfort level to learn about, explore, and expose themselves to others' cultural frameworks such as in Native American cultures.  This can impact keeping Native American children connected and engaged with cultural activities such as Pow Wows and other cultural practices.  This comfort level is influenced by several factors.    \r\n\r\nFurther impacting active efforts not being made in this case was that the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice for local agencies is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture. \r\n\r\nLP #3:\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.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","id":33405}