{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kristine Frick","Short_Answer__292":"Kari Rude","Date__293":"03\/01\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"3","Multiple_Choice__301":"Otter Tail","Short_Answer__303":"Bryson","Short_Answer__304":"Totland","Date__305":"11\/30\/2015","Date__307":"01\/19\/2017","Multiple_Choice__308":"1 Year","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Mother's boyfriend","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"Family Assessment determined child protection services needed, case management closed without child protection services provided to the mother.","Free_Text__318":"Normally the agency drafts a CHIPS petition in a narrative form, explaining why court ordered services are being requested of the court. Explanation of which parties they are requesting to be in court, and they email the CHIPS petition to their County Attorney's office. \r\nUnlike other cases that get \u00e2\u20ac\u0153log jammed\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the county attorney's office, for example, on cases where paternity is not established, those cases can get held up before moving to get on the courts calendar.  \r\nIt was noted that in this case the petition was assigned fairly quickly. Worker wasn't what timeframes apply in court for CHIPS cases, just that they would not start until the petition had admit\/deny hearing. \r\nPrior to the CHIPS petition being filed, both parents knew that it was going to be filed in Juvenile court, and both parents would be required to work with social services case plan. CP mentioned that the father did not have any tasks to complete per say for the case plan, it was mostly going to be structured around the risk to the child and the concerns surrounding deficits in mother's protective capacities.\r\nIn 2014 the agency had two staff positions unfilled, so 7 staff we running the CP unit, carrying both investigations, family assessments, child welfare services cases, and CP case management types of cases.  One worker was assigned to minor parent services.  PSOP is contracted out.\r\nA change in the unit dynamic occurred when four new positions were funded.  A decision was made by the CP supervisor and CP unit, that instead of professionals carrying mixed caseloads, professionals would work one or the other, either investigations or case management, not both.\r\nIt was further explained that the work is different for each of these types of cases, and carrying both affected how the professionals could complete the work required for both types of cases, and the demands and tasks are different. \r\n\r\nWorker noted that their court system feels unpredictable to their CP unit. It is normal that the expectation of safety for children is not consistent or predictable. It is the norm to see family court default to the CHIPS and social services case, but it is more complex even more now days that it was back in 2014.\r\nWorker learned about the family court order after it occurred. Identified communication challenges within the systems child protection, child support, county attorney for the CHIPS and family court system; two court jurisdictions.   \r\n\r\nAt the end of this case, it didn't feel \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Final\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.  Mother didn't have custody but the concerns were still there. She wasn't complying without a formal CHIPS but the order from the child support case trumped the CHIPS. Father was on the CHIPS, but he was and wasn't going to be doing the parenting full time.  His mother, paternal grandmother, stepped in while he was stationed out of state in his place. So they were told by social services that it would be considered failure to protect should they allow mother to have unsupervised contact, since she has not received services yet. Mother struggled to parent safely and adequately.  It is the expectation that the father will protect since social services is out.  Should mother come back into the picture, she would need to work services again. \r\nMother was not having contact with the child per the temporary family court order, when CP closed the case.\r\nDuring 01\/20\/2017 NF investigation this sibling sister was having contact with mother. Worker wasn't sure what happened, but it appeared Family court order may have been modified allowing mother to have contact or there was subjectivity on the father to decide when it was safe for visitation to occur between the mother and the child. Yet still mother never received the requested CP services that were determined to be needed at completion of the CP Assessment in 09\/30\/2014.\r\nWorker expressed frustration with circumstances of this case and having many consults with county attorney that did not meet the definition of neglect. Worker had no authority to make mother engage in services, and she would do as little as possible. \r\n\r\nWorker also noted there are not enough services available for minor parents. Example: 45 min home visit with a mother parenting her infant is not enough to learn how to parent.","Free_Text__319":"The decision for child protection to close the case management workgroup without providing services to the mother was supported by a family court proceeding in a different county jurisdiction granting temporary physical custody to the father at the same time when the local Child Protection agency prepared a Child in Need of Protection and\/or Services (CHIPS) petition and submitted it to their County Attorney's office.  Unaware of family court involvement in the neighboring county, or strategically using a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcwait and see' approach, the County Attorney's Office reviewed the CHIPS petition, contemplating evidence required to meet the burden of proof standard for the requested CHIPS action. The neighboring county's family court proceeding occurred as scheduled, and resulted in a stipulated agreement by the parties.  The stipulated agreement impacted the course of action the County Attorney's Office was allowed to take by law, as criteria and evidence to prove child at risk or in danger was no longer met after the neighboring county's family court granted temporary physical custody of the child to the father. When co-occurring court proceedings take place, it is common practice for the court in which the social services agency requested CHIPS to retain venue for the case. However, under the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, Rule 23. INTERVENTION, other options exists should certain scenarios arise. Due to the child's circumstances and family participants coming to an agreement, the family court found that it was in the best interest of the child to allow the father to intervene using the family court venue, and granted the change of the child's physical residence to the father's home. The father was not an alleged offender and had been assessed by the child protection agency under the open case.  Safety and Decision Making Tools determined the child's change in residence to the father's home was safe and had low risk. Accordingly, the mother did not have the child in her care after the family court order, which changed the criteria under which child protection could be involved. Child protection had no legal jurisdiction to continue working with the mother, as there was no longer an unsafe child in her care. This additionally dismissed the need to pursue a CHIPS. The mother's minimal engagement in previous family based preventative services, further supported the agency's decision to close the case management workgroup without providing voluntary case management services to the mother.","Multiple_Choice__346":"1","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"2","Free_Text__353":"Court district communication  challenge, two counties (Becker and Otter Tail) and two courts systems (Family and Juvenile Courts), each within a different county jurisdiction.\r\nTwo County attorney offices. No method exists to allow sharing of information between Juvenile and Family courts when cases overlap in neighboring counties.","Multiple_Choice__354":"3","Free_Text__355":"The court district communication challenge was complicated by timing of petitions being filed in two separate counties managing different paths of court intervention services for the family (juvenile court in Otter Tail County, and family court in Becker County). The two courts systems' geographical location limited teamwork and interaction when no method of communication exists for knowledge regarding their work with the family to be shared between them. \r\nUnder the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, Rule 23. INTERVENTION, other options exists should certain scenarios arise, making an exception to the general rule that the court in which the social services agency requested CHIPS retain venue for the case. \r\nOnce it was learned by the social services agency in Otter Tail Co. that family court in Becker County granted a stipulated agreement, allowing the father to intervene using the family court venue, and the child's physical residence be moved to the father home, their involvement to provide CP services to the mother was limited.","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"Burden of Proof standards in Juvenile Court and Family Court systems are different and were conflicting.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}