Debrief with CMH Staff related to this case:
Staff indicated that she was working with the subject child through a voluntary placement agreement to support the child's mental health needs.  This was the staff's focus of attention, which is normative practice in children's mental health cases. Staff reported that distance between the child's residential treatment and her mother was significant, creating barriers for visitation and connection.  When the subject child's mother lived closer to the placement she would ride with staff to the residential treatment center to visit with the subject child.  Staff indicated that typical practice within children's mental health cases is that the focus in on the child and that it isn't typical to transport family members or arrange for or provide transportation for visitation of family members when the child is in treatment.  
Further influencing staff not transporting family members is that it is agency policy to not transport family members of clients.  Further impacting connection to the subject child's Tribe and community and cultural connections was that the staff did not perceive this to be her role in both 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.  While they (CMH staff) will provide support if needed to parents, they won't hold their hand.  Staff noted that this was what child protection does, however, they were not involved since it was a voluntary placement.  
Staff noted that it wasn't really a thought to engage other relatives and they did not think mom's brother could support visits due to his drinking and that grandma was not able to support mom with visits. 
Further supporting the decision to not actively engage other known family members was the perception that all relatives known to the agency had engaged in some type of abusive or neglectful behaviors towards the subject child.  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.  
Staff reported trying to recommend the subject child attending a Pow Wow while in placement as the subject child expressed interested in this, however, reported there did not seem to be followed through with. Staff also noted that the community falls short of cultural activities for Native American children.  
Engagement with relatives in these cases is typically done for respite purposes, however, this child was in residential placement so respite was not an option and therefore relatives were not engaged.  
Further impacting visits with family was that the subject child was early in her residential programming and that the subject child wasn't ready for a visit.  Additionally, it was staff's perception that mom was not ready for a visit due to her drug use.  
Staff also reported that her focus was ensuring that the subject child's mental health needs were met, including disability services, day treatment programming, and mental health services.  Staff noted and that she was also working to get her set up with a CADI waiver as a result of her disability as it is difficult finding group home placements and services for children like this.  Staff also indicated that within the mental health placements that they were following the recommendations from the residential treatment center and the subject child's doctor and that traditional cultural healing practices and engagement with the Tribe were not considered or recommended during those times.  
Debrief with CP Staff related to this case:
Difficulties occurred engaging the Tribal worker throughout this case and it was difficult to directly connect with the Tribal worker, despite multiple attempts and modes of communication by staff.  As a result the tribal worker did not provide any additional names of relative tribal members that may be able to care for the subject child or keep her connected to her Tribe.  

Further impacting connection with relatives and culture was that the father's side of the family was not considered for connection or placement.  This resulted from family not providing dad's side of the family's information to the agency.  If the family cannot or won't provide this information, it is normative agency practice that they would not seek out any additional information about the father and this side of the family. It was reported that the subject's child's father had also committed suicide.  As a result of it being difficult to engage the Tribe with the case, it was also difficult to seek out additional guidance regarding consultation around cultural practices and Tribal connections for the subject child.  

In addition to the above, the subject child reported that she was not connected to the Tribe and her mother reported being somewhat connected to the Tribe.  Normative practice is to defer to the family regarding their involvement with the Tribe and the connection that they have to their culture.  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. Staff also indicated that this was first child protection case ever worked and her first ICWA case.  When this case was assigned to her in 2015 there was not a lot of guidance on what to do in these cases.  

Further contributing to barriers in connecting the subject child to her culture is the lack of Native American foster care homes.