{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"Paul Lennander","Date__293":"11\/15\/2016","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"7","Multiple_Choice__301":"Anoka","Short_Answer__303":"Drake","Short_Answer__304":"Oliva","Date__305":"10\/15\/2014","Date__306":"11\/08\/2016","Multiple_Choice__308":"2 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"2","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Short_Answer__311":"Mother's boyfriend","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"Interpreter not used during visit with the family","Free_Text__318":"During the debriefing, the caseworker stated that interpreters were used during all contacts with Law Enforcement and that the LE agency had been the one to coordinate that interpreter. Additionally, all court proceedings utilized an interpreter provided by the court. During visits that were not with LE or at court, the agency utilized an interpreter service that contracts with the County. The worker stated that obtaining an interpreter was quite easy and that an interpreter was generally always available if given 24 hour notice of when\/where it would be needed. \r\n\r\nRegarding the Key Observation, the worker stated that not utilizing an interpreter during the one visit with extended family was due to two things. Primarily it was that the meeting time with family members was not scheduled as the family was traveling to Minnesota from Texas and they were unable to give the worker a time of arrival. For this reason, she was unable to schedule an interpreter due to the uncertainty of the meeting time. A bilingual family member was used during that meeting to interpret. She noted that the meeting took place to make sure that they were in agreement on a case plan, which they had already been made aware of and she just needed to ensure this. The bilingual family member had told the worker that the family wasn't understanding all of her translations so the worker answered their questions and left it at that.","Free_Text__319":"An interpreter not being used during a meeting with a prospective kin placement option for the subject child's sibling was influenced by the worker not knowing when this family was arriving from another state. While interpreter services could be made available on an as-needed basis, typically the contracted interpreters preferred 24 hour notice. As a result, the worker believed that 24 hour notice was necessary when scheduling interpreter services. Due to there being an open criminal investigation, agency practice was that they would defer to the law enforcement (LE) investigation. All prior contact with the family was facilitated by LE, therefore LE provided all interpreter services through their investigation resulting in the worker not having to coordinate that activity. Additionally, the investigator was assisting the ongoing worker with facilitating the court process as there was an agency need to get cases transitioned to case management so the ongoing worker could assume the case management duties. This resulted in additional case responsibilities due to the worker needing to complete her investigation as well as also assist the ongoing worker with the court process. \r\nThe transition period between investigation and case management resulted in multiple workers and supervisors being involved in the case. This supported the worker's assumption that the family had already been informed of the purpose of the meeting as well as the information they were going to discuss. As a result, the investigator utilized a bilingual family member to translate during the meeting. \r\n\r\nWhen Out of Home Placement (OOHP) occurs, such as for the subject child's sibling in this case, there is a push by Local, State and Federal policies to place with kin whenever possible. Additionally, OHHP court cases are prioritized over not court cases by the local agency and require defined timelines for documentation as well as court scheduling. As a result and to ensure the agency was keeping the process moving, the worker was making the best of her circumstances to facilitate a meeting prior to the court hearing without an interpreter as the information needed to be conveyed to the prospective kin to secure the placement and ensure their understanding prior to court. Further impacting the worker moving forward was that the worker's understanding was that the family had already been told this information through an interpreter, facilitated by a co-worker, prior to the meeting before court.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"While interpreter services could be made available on an as-needed basis, typically the contracted interpreters preferred 24 hour notice. As a result, the worker believed that 24 hour notice was necessary when scheduling interpreter services.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"2","Free_Text__355":"The transition period between investigation and case management resulted in multiple workers and supervisors being involved in the case. This supported the worker's assumption that the family had already been informed of the purpose of the meeting as well as the information they were going to discuss. As a result, the investigator utilized a bilingual family member to translate during the meeting.","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"Due to there being an open criminal investigation, agency practice was that they would defer to the law enforcement (LE) investigation. All prior contact with the family was facilitated by LE, therefore LE provided all interpreter services through their investigation resulting in the worker not having to coordinate that activity. - Refer to 626.556 Subd. 10 (5) to find this \r\n\r\nWhen Out of Home Placement (OOHP) occurs, such as for the subject child's sibling in this case, there is a push by Local, State and Federal policies to place with kin whenever possible. Additionally, OHHP court cases are prioritized over non-court cases by the local agency and require defined timelines for documentation as well as court scheduling. - Relative placement best practice vs. ensuring interpreters are available for the families","Multiple_Choice__360":"2","Free_Text__361":"As a result and to ensure the agency was keeping the process moving, the worker was making the best of her circumstances to facilitate a meeting prior to the court hearing without an interpreter as the information needed to be conveyed to the prospective kin to secure the placement and ensure their understanding prior to court.","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}