LP #1:
Additionally impacting permanency not being achieved in this case were communication and consultation barriers that occurred between the county and the tribe on permanency planning for this child. 

LP #2:
Communication gaps between DHS and local agencies has resulted in changes being made that were not fully communicated around active effort requirements have further impacted the implementation and interpretation of active efforts requirements by local agencies.

Furthermore, barriers also occurred in this case in communicating with the Tribe as the Tribal worker is very hard to reach 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.  As a result, the local agency was unable to obtain any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  

An additional influence into not being able to achieve active efforts is knowing who to go to at the Tribe and what constitutes active efforts.  This is impacted by local agencies knowledge of ICWA/MIFPA and who the Tribal contacts are for ICWA/MIPFPA cases.  The communication gap from DHS around revisions regarding implementation of state changes has impacted local agencies knowledge of requirements which can create further create challenges on what to do to ensure active efforts are met.

LP #3:
Lastly, 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.