{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Brittany Lochner","Short_Answer__292":"Lynn Shafer","Date__293":"07\/23\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"4","Multiple_Choice__301":"Chisago","Short_Answer__303":"Desiree","Short_Answer__304":"Miller","Date__305":"04\/22\/2001","Date__307":"06\/07\/2017","Multiple_Choice__308":"16 Years","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"Delays in achieving permanency for the subject child and her siblings.","Free_Text__318":"The subject child spent a majority of her life in out-of-home placement with her maternal grandmother.  Prior to the agency getting involved with the family, the subject child and her 11-year old and 14-year old siblings had spent approximately 261 days in out-of-home placement in a different county.  When the agency got involved with the family, the children were immediately placement with their maternal grandmother due to a violation of the No Contact Order between the children and the mother's boyfriend.  The maternal grandmother completed the licensing process through Chisago County.  Upon receiving the case, the agency's initial thoughts were that this was going to be an automatic Termination of Parental Rights based on the length of time the children had already been in out-of-home placement and permanency timelines.  The worker consulted with her supervisor as to why they were going to make the mother \u00e2\u20ac\u0153jump through hoops\u00e2\u20ac\u009d if the children were already at permanency.  The plan was for the agency to develop case plans for each of the parents and work towards reunification with the mother.  The concurrent permanency plan for the subject child was for a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to the maternal grandmother and if that was not possible, then a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to the paternal grandmother.  The concurrent permanency plan for the 11-year old and the 14-year old was for a Transfer of Legal and Physical Custody to their father.\r\n\r\nAfter reviewing the previous county's case plans and engagement with the family, the agency felt the family was not given an opportunity to work a case plan and felt the family deserved a chance at reunification.  Knowing the children were at permanency, the agency began working towards reunification.  There were numerous conversations with the mother about transferring custody of the children to their concurrent permanency options, but the mother was resistant.  The mother agreed to transfer custody of the subject child to the maternal grandmother, but the near fatal incident occurred and that took priority.  The agency had frequent conversation about filing a Termination of Parental Rights; however wanted to wait until the mother completed a psychological evaluation and they received the results, which occurred in March 2017 and the results were received in April 2017.\r\n\r\nThe worker talked with the subject child about where she would like to live in the event she couldn't be reunified and she identified her paternal grandmother (which ultimately occurred) because she didn't think her maternal grandmother could care for her to due to her own health issues.  Even though there were delays in permanency for the children, the agency acknowledges that the children are in the most appropriate settings.","Free_Text__319":"Delays in achieving permanency was influenced by the local agency's requirement to exhaust relative placement options that would preserve the subject child's placement with her siblings.  Further influencing delays in achieving permanency was the local agency's requirement to follow the 10 Best Interest Factors defined in MN State Statute 260C.212 subd. 2 (b) for the placement of the subject child and her siblings.  Specifically. this was evidenced by the subject child's significant mental health needs and the agency's need to prioritize a relative placement option that could meet the high needs of the subject child while also being the subject child's placement preference as required in the 10 best interest factor considerations.\r\n\r\nDelays to achieve the permanency preference was influenced by the fact the permanency option lived in a different county and needed to be licensed by that county.  Additionally, staffing limitations existed in the agency responsible for licensing the permanency option, which delayed permanency for the subject child. \r\n\r\nThe agency's need to balance the multiple competing priorities of relative placement, sibling preservation, the 10 Best Interests Factors, and permanency timelines also contributed to the delays in achieving permanency.\r\n\r\nFurther contributing to permanency delays was that the burden of proof criteria under 260C.301 to meet the requirements to terminate parental rights and move towards permanency for the subject child and her siblings had not been met when the case came into the second county of jurisdiction.  The second county wanted to give the family an opportunity to work the case plan towards reunification and wanted to complete a case plan with the subject child's father as this had not been previously done in the first county of jurisdiction.  \r\n\r\nLastly, the near fatal critical incident itself further contributed to delays in permanency due to the local agency prioritizing the subject child's mental health needs over the achievement of permanency.  This included placing the child in a residential treatment facility to ensure the subject child's safety and meet her high level of mental health needs.","Multiple_Choice__346":"0","Multiple_Choice__348":"3","Free_Text__349":"Delays to achieve the permanency preference was influenced by the fact the permanency option lived in a different county and needed to be licensed by that county.  Additionally, staffing limitations existed in the agency responsible for licensing the permanency option, which delayed permanency for the subject child.","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"0","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"Further contributing to permanency delays was that the burden of proof criteria under 260C.301 to meet the requirements to terminate parental rights and move towards permanency for the subject child and her siblings had not been met when the case came into the second county of jurisdiction.  The second county wanted to give the family an opportunity to work the case plan towards reunification and wanted to complete a case plan with the subject child's father as this had not been previously done in the first county of jurisdiction.\r\n\r\nThe agency's need to balance the multiple competing priorities of relative placement, sibling preservation, the 10 Best Interests Factors defined in MN State Statute 260C.212 subd. 2 (b), and permanency timelines also contributed to the delays in achieving permanency.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}