{"id":276,"form_id":"22","user_id":"91","question_id":null,"organization_id":"13","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__291\":\"Brittany Lochner\",\"Short_Answer__292\":\"Brenda Mahoney\",\"Date__293\":\"10\\\/01\\\/2019\",\"Multiple_Choice__294\":\"Near Fatality\",\"Yes_or_No__295\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__300\":\"4\",\"Multiple_Choice__301\":\"Insanti\",\"Short_Answer__303\":\"Elijah\",\"Short_Answer__304\":\"Kohl\",\"Date__305\":\"01\\\/18\\\/2018\",\"Date__307\":\"08\\\/12\\\/2019\",\"Multiple_Choice__308\":\"1 Year\",\"Multiple_Choice__309\":\"1\",\"Short_Answer__310\":\"Unknown\",\"Multiple_Choice__316\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__317\":\"The licensing agency was not notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed.\",\"Free_Text__318\":\"The licensing agency was aware of the placing agency's intention to place the sibling child with the relatives and at the time the sibling child was born, placement in relative foster care with the subject child had already been determined to be in the sibling child's best interest by the placing agency. Supporting the placement of the sibling child with the relatives was the fact that the subject child was placed with them and the relatives were willing to take the sibling child. Additionally, there was general pressure to place siblings together. The Sibling Bill of Rights had been introduced within the placing agency around the same time as the sibling child's birth, further influencing the pressure to place with siblings whenever possible.\\r\\n\\r\\nThe placing agency put an emphasis on the relative search process as it is important to those working within the county, as well as, the judges who oversee these cases in court. The placing agency has a JTST (preplacement) process they bring case information to in order to make decisions on a case. Specifically, this team met frequently through this case to discuss relative placement options for the children. The worker felt the support of this team and stated every decision was made as a team. Additionally, the placing agency had a worker dedicated to relative search efforts, which took the responsibility of locating relatives off of the worker on the case. \\r\\n\\r\\nOnce the placing agency learned that the mother was pregnant, the worker on the case had a conversation with the licensing agency about the new baby coming and the intention to place the new baby (sibling child) with the relatives at the time of his birth. The focus of the worker's attention was put on supporting the relatives in caring for 1 biological child and these 2 siblings, 3 years old and younger. The worker indicated that the placing agency went above and beyond to support the relative in preparing them to care for the 3 children. Additionally, the worker shared that they didn't have a lot of situations where children needed to be placed outside of their county.\\r\\n\\r\\nAdditional information shared by the worker was that the relatives were doing everything they needed to do in order to become licensed and the feedback that was received from the licensing agency and other collateral contacts was that the relatives were completing tasks and paperwork and cooperating with services. The relatives had an extensive support system and were invested in doing what needed to be done to care for the children.\",\"Free_Text__319\":\"The licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was influenced by staff's perception that notification had been given, as the worker previously informed the licensing agency of the intention to place the sibling child with the relatives. Given the circumstances of the case, multiple workers had been assigned to the case (licensing worker, Family Investigation (FI) and Family Assessment (FA) worker, and an adoption worker) which contributed to role ambiguity regarding placement decisions on the case. There was also an assumption made by the FI worker that notice was given by the current worker. Additionally, the agency was put in a position to assign multiple workers to manage the case due to state and federal requirements relating to placement, permanency, and adoption. These requirements place agencies in a position to need specialized workers to fulfill the multiple requirements of these statutes. Furthermore, the number of federal and state documentation requirements within SSIS related to permanency\\\/adoption cases such as this, place staff in a position to balance multiple competing tasks and documentation requirements further impacting the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed. \\r\\n\\r\\nGiven the staff's limited time at the agency, staff did not have prior experience and knowledge of placement requirements when cross jurisdictional placements occur, further influencing the licensing agency not being notified when the sibling child was placed. The limitations and knowledge regarding this were impacted by the agency's ability to teach staff everything they need to know about placement requirements. The perceived lack of clarity on guidance and direction regarding emergency and non-emergency placements has an effect on the agency's ability to teach these requirements; therefore impacting staff's knowledge on such requirements. The number of requirements in child welfare can also make it difficult to teach staff everything they need to know. Further influencing the licensing agency not being notified was staff's focus of attention on supporting the relative's ability to care for 3 children, ages 3 years and younger. The need to provide a high level of support was influenced by state statute requirements to place siblings together (260C.212 subd. 2d) and relative placement (260C.221) to make sure the relatives were able to maintain the placement.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurther influencing the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was the relationship between the licensing worker and the foster care parents (relatives), as the foster care parents would likely have informed the licensing worker that the sibling child had been placed, which influenced the perception that notification was given.\",\"Short_Answer__320\":\"The siblings were separated.\",\"Free_Text__321\":\"No debrief occurred on this learning point as it came out at the mapping.\",\"Free_Text__322\":\"The siblings being separated was supported by the recommendation from the sibling separation evaluation which suggested that the siblings remain in their respective homes. The agency's practice to seek outside consultation when siblings are separated coupled with concerns about disrupting the sibling's attachments, further supported the agency's decision for outside consultation. Influencing the agency's practice to seek outside consultation was the requirement to look at the best interests of both children and to make an individual determination regarding each child. \\r\\n\\r\\nAdditionally, the subject child had significant medical needs and the sibling child's foster care provider stated they could not care for the subject child. Because of the ambivalence the agency perceived that if they placed the subject child with the sibling child's foster parents, it placed both placements at risk of disruption; therefore, the agency made the decision to not place the subject child with the sibling child's foster parents.\",\"Multiple_Choice__346\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__347\":\"Learning point #1:\\r\\nThe licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was influenced by staff's perception that notification had been given, as the worker previously informed the licensing agency of the intention to place the sibling child with the relatives.\\r\\n\\r\\nThere was also an assumption made by the FI worker that notice was given by the current worker.\\r\\n\\r\\nFurther influencing the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was the relationship between the licensing worker and the foster care parents (relatives), as the foster care parents would likely have informed the licensing worker that the sibling child had been placed, which influenced the perception that notification was given.\\r\\n\\r\\nLearning point #2:\\r\\nThe subject child had significant medical needs and the sibling child's foster care provider stated they could not care for the subject child. Because of the ambivalence, the agency perceived that if they placed the subject child with the sibling child's foster parents, it placed both placements at risk of disruption; therefore, the agency made the decision to not place the subject child with the sibling child's foster parents.\",\"Multiple_Choice__348\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__349\":\"Learning point #1:\\r\\nThe limitations and knowledge regarding this were impacted by the agency's ability to teach staff everything they need to know about placement requirements. The perceived lack of clarity on guidance and direction regarding emergency and non-emergency placements has an effect on the agency's ability to teach these requirements; therefore impacting staff's knowledge on such requirements. The number of requirements in child welfare can also make it difficult to teach staff everything they need to know.\",\"Multiple_Choice__350\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__352\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__354\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__356\":\"2\",\"Free_Text__357\":\"Learning point #!:\\r\\nGiven the staff's limited time at the agency, staff did not have prior experience and knowledge of placement requirements when cross jurisdictional placements occur, further influencing the licensing agency not being notified when the sibling child was placed. The limitations and knowledge regarding this were impacted by the agency's ability to teach staff everything they need to know about placement requirements.\",\"Multiple_Choice__368\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__358\":\"3\",\"Free_Text__359\":\"Learning point #1:\\r\\nthe agency was put in a position to assign multiple workers to manage the case due to state and federal requirements relating to placement, permanency, and adoption. These requirements place agencies in a position to need specialized workers to fulfill the multiple requirements of these statutes. Furthermore, the number of federal and state documentation requirements within SSIS related to permanency\\\/adoption cases such as this, place staff in a position to balance multiple competing tasks and documentation requirements further impacting the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed. \\r\\n\\r\\nFurther influencing the licensing agency not being notified by the placing agency when the sibling child was placed was the relationship between the licensing worker and the foster care parents (relatives), as the foster care parents would likely have informed the licensing worker that the sibling child had been placed, which influenced the perception that notification was given.\\r\\n\\r\\nLearning point #2:\\r\\nThe agency's practice to seek outside consultation when siblings are separated coupled with concerns about disrupting the sibling's attachments, further supported the agency's decision for outside consultation. Influencing the agency's practice to seek outside consultation was the requirement to look at the best interests of both children and to make an individual determination regarding each child.\",\"Multiple_Choice__360\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__362\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__364\":\"0\",\"Multiple_Choice__366\":\"0\",\"Yes_or_No__370\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"91","updated_by":81,"created_at":"5\/26\/2021 2:33:23 pm","updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 11:07:48 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Elijah Kohl"}