{"report_id":248,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"1.) When determining if CP services were needed, the SDM tool's result of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchigh' for the risk assessment was considered, however, it was not the only factor used to determine if CP services would be provided at the time the CP investigation closed. There was a domestic abuse no contact order (DANCO) (MN Statute 629.750), issued by the court, which was being complied with by the mother and the offender. In addition, the mother's protective capacities and safety assessment result of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153safe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was considered following DHS FA\/FI guidance. \r\nThe fact that the probable cause standard was not met for a child in need of protection and\/or services defined by juvenile court law (MN statute 260C.007 Subd. 6 and 260C.141 Subd. 1), and\/or the prescriptive legislation provided in MN Statute 626.556 Subd. 10e. (g), \r\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153a determination that child protective services are needed means that the local welfare agency has documented conditions during the investigation sufficient to cause a child protection worker, to conclude that a child is at significant risk of maltreatment if protective intervention is not provided and that the individuals responsible for the child's care have not taken or are not likely to take actions to protect the child from maltreatment or risk of maltreatment,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\r\nwhich supported the agency to close the investigation and not open ongoing CP CM workgroup, in spite of the high risk assessment result. Protective iintervention was not in the best interests of the children (MN statute 518.17), as the mother was not an offending caregiver, she was a safe parent\/caregiver. She actively displayed protective capacities to keep the children safe.  She was engaged with the staff and followed the recommendations within the safety plan, she complied with having no contact with the offender after issuance of a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO), and the mother was also utilizing her family for support. \r\n2.) In this case the risk to child safety was actively being controlled for using safety planning, which both caregivers engaged and followed local agency recommendations. The perception is that the risk assessment result does not speak directly to when ongoing services are necessarily needed, and the risk assessment result is used as a functional starting point during supervisor and county attorney consultation, as well as during conversations with the family. Staff believe the risk assessment is used to establish a baseline, considering many other factors when deciding if ongoing CP services need to be provided. Other factors considered is if the risk to child safety continues to exist. Although, contrary to State guidance and local practice norms, (that staff seek a consult with their supervisor and the county attorney to inquire CHIPS and the need for ongoing case management services when there is a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchigh' result on the risk assessment at the close of a CP investigation), the staff had Supervisor support to close the CP investigation and not open a workgroup for ongoing CP case management services in this case. When the result of the risk assessment is \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchigh' in combination with a safety assessment result of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsafe', a discrepancy surfaces. The discrepancy highlights a double bind\/goal conflict for staff to navigate and resolve when children are \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcpresumed safe' as the presenting reality of conditions do not suspect substantial child endangerment (Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd. 2(o )) and\/or services are not needed to ameliorate immediate risk to child safety.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:07:21 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:07:21 am","id":27436}