LP #1:
Furthermore, it was staff's perception based upon knowledge shared with them that the child's father had passed away.  As a result the agency did not believe that there were any possible paternal relative placement options for this child either.

This can be further compounded by staff's perception that in order to proceed on an ICWA case they must wait for the BIA to respond with Tribal affiliation before proceeding with permanency planning and case proceedings.

Lastly, it was the local agencies perception in addition to their county attorney's perception that a Qualified Expert Witness (QEW) for the Tribe needed to be present at court in order to move toward permanency.  As a result, the agency believed that they were unable to move towards permanency for the child and continued to delay permanency court proceedings as a result.

LP #2:
Active 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.

Further impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe, community, and culture was that the staff did not perceive supporting mom and other relatives in both visitation and connection with the subject child, as well as engaging the Tribe in the subject child's treatment to be within their scope of work with Children's Mental Health cases.  Often, Children's Mental Health staff operate with the belief that this is child protection's responsibility. 

An 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.

Staff also noted that their own lack of understanding and not wanting to offend Native American clients further impacts the comfort level to explore cultural differences.  Lastly, staff's own cultural differences and broader sense of culture can further impact exploration of other cultures influencing how Native American children are being supported to stay connected with their Tribe and culture.
Also, there was a perception among staff that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors toward the subject child supporting staff's decision to not actively engage other known family members. Staff's mental model of traditional funeral practices and conditions created by poverty (moving from house to house, eating gas station food, etc.) may have been perceived as neglectful when the child was home with relatives. This may have further impacted the engagement of relatives and other tribal members as supports or placement options for the subject child.
An additional factor that influences when active efforts are not made is that staff have the perception that they are meeting ICWA/MIFPA requirements when the Judge rules that active efforts have been achieved.  Varying levels of understanding and knowledge regarding fulfillment of ICWA/MIFPA requirements by Judges further supports active efforts not being met when the court rules that active efforts have been made when they may not have not been in accordance with ICWA/MIFPA.

Different interpretations around active efforts in such circumstances supports why staff perceive once someone says they are not connected to his/her Tribe that staff stop pursing this with the client.    This can make it challenging to try and engage the Tribe and support the family in connecting with their culture and Tribe if they indicate they are not connected. Staff noted that it can be difficult to engage families with their culture when not connected before they are involved with child protection. 

LP #3:
Furthermore, 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.