Law enforcement did not perceive a need to cross report the accidental critical incident to child protection, nor did other mandated reporters who had contact with the family at the time of the incident. Law enforcement did not have safety concerns for the sibling children and they did not pursue an emergency 72 hour hold at the time of the critical incident. Law enforcement considered the grandparents to be safe caregivers and the sibling children were presumed safe in their care.
Differing perspectives exist between law enforcement and child protection about each of their roles at times when critical incidents occur. The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing.