{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kristine Frick","Short_Answer__292":"JoLynn Sundstrom","Date__293":"03\/04\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"7","Multiple_Choice__301":"Dakota","Short_Answer__303":"Riley","Short_Answer__304":"Vititoe","Date__305":"01\/04\/2015","Date__307":"02\/13\/2017","Multiple_Choice__308":"2 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Mother's boyfriend","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"While conducting a family assessment for neglect (inadequate supervision), additional signs of suspected abuse\/neglect were noted to the 2 year old sibling child and a Child Protection report did not occur.","Free_Text__318":"Debrief information\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Local Rationality - Knowledge factors, strategic factors, and attentional dynamics\r\nThe worker received this family assessment assignment on a Friday, and felt the family assessment went as good as it could have. The worker works a four 10 hour shift (Tuesday-Friday) every week, with Monday off.  The worker's perception is that this was a routine assessment in that after assignment, he\/she cross reported the case to law enforcement as Family Assessment workers always do per local agency norm. Law enforcement combines their investigative\/assessment efforts with the worker depending on the allegation type, and\/or if there is extensive historical law enforcement contacts with a given family, and\/or if there are other safety risks posed to the worker. The worker noted the working relationship between his\/herself and LE is good.\r\nThe worker did not anticipate LE would want to attend the home visit\/initial face to face contact for this case as it was for neglect \u00e2\u20ac\u201c inadequate supervision to 9 and 6 year olds.  Law enforcement did not join the FA worker for the initial contact with the family. There is a mutual understanding between this experienced (30 years) Family Assessment worker and local law enforcement. If the worker does not hear from Llaw enforcement after he\/she makes the cross report, the worker moves forward without them - making meeting timelines a top priority. In some situations the worker will check in with them after making initial face to face upon their request to report any concerns. The worker noted an advantage of having experience working with local law enforcement as she knows the types of situations they typically want to jointly assess\/investigate.   \r\nThe worker noted there is a 5 day expectation to meet face to face timelines for family assessments, but prefers to reach out by noon each day to schedule a time to meet with caregivers for each new report she receives. This worker prefers to make face to face contact as soon as possible for each report. This worker was able to connect with the mother and scheduled a time to meet at the home the afternoon of the same day the report was received. The worker noted the mother was not guarded, she was cooperative, answered her call and scheduled with her for the same day. The mother allowed her to come into the home, speak to the children, and observe the 2 year old's body without resisting the worker's request to do so. From the worker's years of experience, the mother was forthcoming with information and appeared genuine in her responses. The worker credits comforting approach of using a telephone call to present his\/herself in a cordial manner when setting up a time to meet with the caregiver as being most helpful in gathering trustworthy information from caregivers.\r\nThe worker observed marks and bruises to the 2 year old and asked the mother about all of them.  There was a \u00c2\u00bd-inch scratch on his forehead and a 2-inch scratch mark on his back, which Mother said that he got it from his dad's when he was there on January 20th \/ 21st and that he fell out of a high chair.  Mother didn't really know how he fell out, but he had the scratch mark when he returned to her care on the 21st.  The 2 year old also had a huge egg on his head. Father told the babysitter, that the subject child fell out of the high chair and his back fell onto a metal dry crate. Father told the mother that he fell out of the high chair. Mother is not going to allow the child to go to his father's home anymore because of this incident with the high chair.  \r\nThere was a quarter-sized bruise on the right side of his forehead and 1-inch scratch mark on the right side of his face. Mother did not know how he got those marks.  Subject child also had a quarter-sized and dime-sized bruise on the left side of his face.  Mother said that he got the dime-sized bruise on Tuesday or Wednesday when her live-in boyfriend gave the subject child a bath and he hit the soap dispenser when he kept trying to stand up in the bath.  \r\nSibling sister reported the subject child had fallen down the steps on Wednesday (two days prior) at supper time.  Sibling brother reported subject child \u00e2\u20ac\u0153head butts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d his sibling brother.    \r\nAs part of the safety assessment, the worker took photos of the marks and bruises observed on the 2 year old and uploaded them to the agency's electronic file system. Other professionals who have rights to the electronic file system can access the photos, and other \u00e2\u20ac\u0153hard file\u00e2\u20ac\u009d documents stored on the electronic file system. The agency does not have paper copied of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153hard files\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. The worker noted it is not always the practice norm to take photos of scratches\/bruises.  He\/she explained in this case, the scratches\/bruises raised concern that he\/she wanted to have them documented and saved for the safety assessment.   \r\nWhen considering the potential of possible abuse\/neglect during an open family assessment, if the worker believes the level of injury meets criteria for a making a new allegation\/CP report, the worker can consult with peers, his\/her supervisor and\/or the intake.  The worker will most often use supervisor consult first, and of it is then believed that potential for abuse\/neglect meets criteria to make a CP report, the supervisor and worker will decide with intake if a new allegation warrants a new report. The worker did not feel the injuries warranted making a new Child Protection Report after asking the mother and siblings about the 2 year olds scratches\/bruises. \r\nAlthough the worker noted caseload size depends on many variables, the timing of this Family Assessment came at a time when caseload sizes typically increase between February \u00e2\u20ac\u201c April.  Yet, the worker indicated caseload size always feels manageable to him\/her. There are 13 staff who take Family Assessment type cases. During these busier months of February \u00e2\u20ac\u201c April it is not uncommon for FA workers to receive 8-12 new cases a month. \r\nWhen the allegation of physical abuse for the 2 year old child came into Child Protection during the open Family Assessment, this had the most significant impact on his\/her work.  The Family Assessment work with the family ended sooner than the 45 day timeframe, since the investigation into the near fatal injury to the 2 year old took precedence. The worker consulted with his\/her supervisor and completed dictating her contacts for the case so the dictations could be sent in for transcription.   \r\nContact with non-custodial parents who do not reside in the same home as the child is guided by a County Attorney's Office protocol.  The protocol recommends the family assessment worker make contact with the alleged perpetrator, and non-custodial parents of identified victim children in the family assessment because they have the right to know about allegations. There is an exception for some domestic violence situations, but in this case the mother was compliant with providing the names and contact information about all the children's fathers. \r\nIt is important to note that the 2 year old child observed to have scratches and bruises was not an alleged victim of the Family Assessment allegation of neglect\u00e2\u20ac\u201c inadequate supervision.","Free_Text__319":"A Child protection family assessment response to the family's home was conducted regarding allegations of neglect (inadequate supervision) involving the two older children. Staff focused attention on the older children and the neglect allegation during the initial face to face home visit.  The staff also focused attention on assessing immediate threats to safety and risk of maltreatment to  all the children during the initial contact with the family. During the initial safety and risk assessment, the staff observed and documented the marks and bruises on the 2 year old. The staff also took photos of the injuries and uploaded them to the case file as part of the staff's ongoing safety and risk assessments under the open family assessment. The older children and mother provided explanations of how the two year old child received the injuries, which were perceived by the staff as being accidental in nature, and as not occurring in the mother's home. The staff perceived the mother's demeanor to be non\u00e2\u20ac\u0090defensive and willing to engage with the worker's requests. The mother's protective capacities were assessed and determined to be protective, as the mother verbalized a safety plan regarding the two year old sibling child. The mother was deemed to be a safe caregiver with no immediate danger or safety risk present in her home following the initial face to face home visit. The totality of the information learned in real time by the staff, influenced the staff to not make a child protection report regarding the 2 year olds injuries.\r\nThe staff's many years of experience working in child welfare, along with, interpretation of statute and exercising ethical professional judgement about when mandated reporting is required, influenced the staff to not make a new report. Guided  MN statute 626.556 Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors definitions of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAccidental', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNeglect', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPhysical Abuse', and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThreatened Injury', along with 626.556 Subd. 3 \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPersons mandated to report; persons voluntarily report', contributed to the staff's interpretation of the threshold to report or not report.. Knowledge factors accessed and available to the staff at the time influenced the staff's perception regarding not meeting the statutory definitions; the staff did not have \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a reason to believe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that the 2 year old was a new victim, as that the marks\/bruises on the 2 year old child were not perceived as being a result of suspected maltreatment based on the explanations provided by the mother and older children corroborating statements about the marks\/bruises' accidental nature.\r\nFurthermore, obtaining knowledge by using proven engagement strategies from experience, including not having law enforcement present during the initial face to face home visit, was the staff's priority using the family assessment approach. The staff's ability to gather credible information in order to assess safety and risk, in addition to the family's strengths and needs, was perceived as more successful when law enforcement was not present, and shaped the staff's mental model around credibility of the information the staff learned at the time. \r\n\tAssessing initial safety and risk without law enforcement present in this case enabled the staff to remain involved with the family, and to operate under the presumption that continued monitoring of safety and risk would occur, as the mother was compliant and was willing to cooperate with the staff's requests during the initial home visit. The staff also prioritized using the least invasive approach and least restrictive intervention with the family, which also contributed to the staff's decision not to make a new CP report. The staff did not believe there was a need to control for an immediate safety threat, as the marks\/bruises observed on the 2 year old child did not meet the burden of proof as defined in state statute at that moment in time.  The staff considered needing more time to understand the full extent of the circumstances, and that future work with the family would expose any potential safety and risk to the children while the staff continued work under the open family assessment.","Multiple_Choice__346":"3","Free_Text__347":"1.) The staff's decision not to make a new report after observation of marks\/bruises on the 2 year old child was influenced by the staff's many years of experience working FA response cases, and the staff's perception that the marks\/bruises did not rise to the level of making a new CP report . \r\n\r\n2.) Guided by the staff's interpretation of 626.556 Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors definitions of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAccidental', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNeglect', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPhysical Abuse', and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThreatened Injury', along with 626.556 Subd. 3 \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPersons mandated to report; persons voluntarily report', contributed to the staff's interpretation of the threshold to report or not report.  The staff's many years of experience working in child welfare, along with exercising ethical professional judgement about when mandated reporting is required influenced the staff to not make a new report. The staff did not have a reason to believe new allegations and\/or a new victim child existed based on the information known at the time.  \r\n3.)The family assessment response to the family's home was regarding allegations of neglect (inadequate supervision) involving the two older children, which the staff focused attention on during the initial face to face. The staff also focused attention on assessing immediate safety and future risk of maltreatment of all the children during the initial contact with the family. The staff observed and documented the marks and bruises on the 2 year old. The staff also took photos of the injuries and uploaded them to the case file as part of the staff's ongoing safety and risk assessments under the open family assessment.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"1","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"1.) Staff worked to balance FA engagement approach with the family and meeting the FA response timeline within 5 days. Scheduling the initial contact with the children and family was top priority for the staff, as best family assessment guidance requires staff to schedule with caregivers prior to making an unexpected home visit. The staff's mental model shaped by past experience woking family assessments is to complete scheduling home visits for new reports as soon as possible in order to meet the pressure of 5 day initial face to face timeline.\r\n\r\n2.)Guided by the staff's interpretation of 626.556 Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors definitions of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcAccidental', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNeglect', \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPhysical Abuse', and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThreatened Injury', along with 626.556 Subd. 3 \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcPersons mandated to report; persons voluntarily report', contributed to the staff's interpretation of the threshold to report or not report.  The staff's many years of experience working in child welfare, along with exercising ethical professional judgement about when mandated reporting is required influenced the staff to not make a new report. The staff did not have a reason to believe new allegations and\/or a new victim child existed based on the information known at the time.","Multiple_Choice__360":"1","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"3","Free_Text__367":"Using engagement strategies to access the family and build working relationships in order to assess the family's strengths and needs, without law enforcement present, was a successful practice that enabled the staff to remain involved with the family to continue monitoring for risk to safety using least restrictive intervention.  The staff prioritized using the family assessment engagement protocol with the mother by calling the mother first to schedule a time that worked to meet and avoiding the need to make an unexpected home visit to meet the 5 day face to face timeline. Scheduling initial face to face home visits for newly assigned reports -as soon as possible- was a practice norm that the staff had developed to balance best FA practice while also successfully meeting the day response timeline. Furthermore, the staff was able to schedule and meet with the family in the same day, which was a Friday, and the staff also had the following Monday off work.  The staff cross reported the report to law enforcement, and responded under the presumption that law enforcement would not join in the initial face to face for an allegation of neglect, and to facilitate best engagement for a working relationship with the client.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}