{"id":27,"form_id":"18","user_id":"160","question_id":null,"organization_id":"39","tab_id":null,"question_type":null,"text_answer":"{\"Multiple_Choice__287\":\"Brittany Lochner\",\"Short_Answer__288\":\"Janet Bowman, Jen Goodman, Wendy Woessner, Jess VanKuyk\",\"Multiple_Choice__425\":\"CFSR Item 6 - Permanency: 24 months\",\"Multiple_Choice__290\":\"SCIR\",\"Date__289\":\"10\\\/29\\\/2020\",\"Yes_or_No__372\":\"No\",\"Yes_or_No__375\":\"No\",\"Multiple_Choice__377\":\"9\",\"Multiple_Choice__378\":\"Ramsey\",\"Short_Answer__380\":\"Isabella\",\"Short_Answer__381\":\"Anderson\",\"Date__382\":\"06\\\/20\\\/2015\",\"Multiple_Choice__383\":\"2\",\"Short_Answer__384\":\"The subject child has been in foster care (in the pre-adoptive home) for 4 years, free for adoption for 3 years, and adoption has not been finalized.\",\"Free_Text__385\":\"The agency was committed to having all of the children remain in the same placement and prioritized the children being adopted by the grandparents. Following the TPR and when the children were all in grandparents\\u2019 home, the plan was for the grandparents to adopt the children. After about a year, the grandparents started reporting that the siblings\\u2019 behavior was too much for them to handle. The agency worked to support the grandparents and the children\\u2019s placements through frequent visits\\\/conversations with the grandparents, engaging therapeutic foster care services, coaching and mentoring for the grandparents. According to the worker, the children had been in 10-11 placements and they were trying to salvage the placement so the children could stay together and be adopted by their grandparents and stay connected to their birth family. The agency felt that the placement was never stable enough to finalize adoption and did everything they could to keep all of the children in the grandparents\\u2019 home. They agency felt they would get to a point where they were ready to move forward with the adoption and then the grandparents would ask for more time. It appeared that the house was divided and the grandparents did not share the same goal for adoption. From the worker\\u2019s perspective, the grandparents were always committed to adopting the subject child and not as consistent with wanting to adopt the siblings. It came to a point during a recent court hearing that the Judge told the grandparents that they needed to make a decision as to whether or not they would adopt the 9-year old. Ultimately, they decided not to pursue adoption of either sibling. The agency is moving forward with adoption of the subject child with the grandparents.\",\"Free_Text__386\":\"Items identified during the mapping supporting adoption not being finalized after child being in foster care for 4 years, and free for adoption for 3 years, included a pressure to place with relatives, pressure to keep siblings together, child\\u2019s needs not being able to be met, and additional pressures placed on caregiver\\u2019s family.   \\r\\nPressure to place with relatives was supported by the courts\\u2019 role in the process. The court and DHS are responsible for approving sibling separations and those decisions are influenced by the federal measures of AFSA. Adherence to those measures supported the agency\\u2019s decision making process regarding preference for relative placements as opposed to non-relative placement. The grandfather wanted to adopt the siblings; however, the grandmother was apprehensive about adopting the siblings because she was the sole caregiver at times while the grandfather was working. The grandparents needed assistance for which the agency was unable to provide due to the unavailability of expertise to do so. \\r\\nThe competing priorities of placement stability versus sibling separation were influenced by the pressure to keep siblings together as outlined by the Sibling Bill of Rights (M.S. 260C.008). An additional factor contributing to pressures to keep the siblings together came from the recommendations by the Guardian ad Litem, which was guided by Minnesota statute 260C.212 subd. 2\\r\\nWhile the family wanted to finalize adoption, given their attachment to the child, their inability to meet the child\\u2019s needs supported their reluctance to move forward with the adoption. Due to the child\\u2019s need for permanency, an ultimatum was given by the courts for the caregivers to make a decision regarding adoption. The child\\u2019s behaviors and the grandmother being placed in the role as the primary caregiver without needed breaks, placed additional pressure on the family which influenced their decision to not adopt the child. Factors that contributed to these pressures included the children needing to be homeschooled due to COVID 19 and the grandfather being out of the home due to employment. Additionally, the family was reluctant to have providers in their home in order to reduce their exposure to the COVID virus.\\r\\nDue to the needs and age of the child, the child required many services to manage his needs. Services were often not available and when available, not consistent. Services often required pretesting or assessment to determine eligibility, however, these assessments often had a waitlist.  The grandparent\\u2019s lack of understanding about the children\\u2019s diagnosis and social interactions supported their inability to manage the child\\u2019s behaviors and needs and contributed to their reluctance to finalize adoption.\",\"Short_Answer__387\":\"Sibling separation and placement stability\",\"Free_Text__388\":\"The agency was committed to keeping all of the children together. When the dynamics of the household began to change, the worker indicated he worked closely with the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to consult with and assist in providing support for the grandparents and the children. Therapeutic foster care services were put in place to support the grandparents and the siblings. The worker felt this was a challenging case for the siblings as they have needs that required additional support, which was difficult for the grandparents to manage at times. When decisions needed to be made whether to move the siblings, the worker stated that he consulted with his supervisor, the GAL and the agency\\u2019s screening team. In regards to the 12-year old, the grandparents didn\\u2019t feel they could meet his needs and requested that he move and once this occurred, the grandparents made the decision not to pursue adoption of the 12-year old. About a year after the 12-year old left the home, the grandparents began telling the worker that the 9-year old\\u2019s needs are becoming too much for them. The worker felt that the grandma was overwhelmed with having to home school the kids (during the pandemic), the grandpa being out of the home for work, and being confined to the house added stress to the grandma, which may have supported the grandparents decision to not pursue adoption with the 9-year old as well.\\r\\nThe worked stated that they couldn\\u2019t force the grandparents to adopt if they weren\\u2019t ready.\",\"Free_Text__389\":\"Items identified during the mapping supporting sibling separation and placement stability included a pressure to place with relatives, pressure to keep siblings together, child\\u2019s need and additional pressures placed on caregiver\\u2019s family.   \\r\\nPressure to place with relatives was supported by the courts\\u2019 role in the process. The court and DHS are responsible for approving sibling separations and those decisions are influenced by the federal measures of AFSA. Adherence to those measures supports the agency\\u2019s decision making process regarding preference for relative placements as opposed to non-relative placement.\\r\\nThe competing priorities of placement stability versus sibling separation were influenced by the pressure to keep siblings together as outlined by the Sibling Bill of Rights (M.S. 260C.008). An additional factor contributing to pressures to keep the siblings together came from the recommendations by the Guardian ad Litem, which was guided by Minnesota statute 260C.212 subd. 2\\r\\nWhile the family wanted to finalize adoption given their attachment to the child, their inability to meet the child\\u2019s needs supported their reluctance to move forward with the adoption. Due to the child\\u2019s need for permanency, an ultimatum was given by the courts for the caregivers to make a decision regarding adoption. The child\\u2019s behaviors and the grandmother being placed in the role as the primary caregiver without needed breaks, placed additional pressure on the family which influenced their decision to not adopt the child. Factors that contributed to these pressures included the children needing to be homeschooled due to COVID 19 and the grandfather being out of the home due to employment. Additionally, the family was reluctant to have providers in their home in order to reduce their exposure to the COVID 19 virus.\\r\\nDespite the caregivers having an attachment to the older sibling, they were unable to meet his needs, prompting the necessity of an outside placement, requiring sibling separation  A year after the sibling separation, a sibling child began exhibiting similar behaviors, again posing challenges to the family to meet his needs  Due to the challenging needs of the child, the caregivers determined they were not able to meet his needs, which led to another placement disruption and the siblings being separated.\",\"Free_Text__401\":\"LP #1: Items identified during the mapping supporting adoption not being finalized after child being in foster care for 4 years, and free for adoption for 3 years, included a pressure to place with relatives, pressure to keep siblings together, child\\u2019s needs not being able to be met, and additional pressures placed on caregiver\\u2019s family.   \\r\\nPressure to place with relatives was supported by the courts\\u2019 role in the process. The court and DHS are responsible for approving sibling separations and those decisions are influenced by the federal measures of ASFA. Adherence to those measures supported the agency\\u2019s decision making process regarding preference for relative placements as opposed to non-relative placement. \\r\\n\\r\\nLP #2: Items identified during the mapping supporting sibling separation and placement stability included a pressure to place with relatives, pressure to keep siblings together, child\\u2019s need and additional pressures placed on caregiver\\u2019s family.   \\r\\nPressure to place with relatives was supported by the courts\\u2019 role in the process. The court and DHS are responsible for approving sibling separations and those decisions are influenced by the federal measures of AFSA. Adherence to those measures supports the agency\\u2019s decision making process regarding preference for relative placements as opposed to non-relative placement.\",\"Free_Text__403\":\"LP #1: The grandparents needed assistance for which the agency was unable to provide due to the unavailability of expertise to do so (clarify what kind of assistance and from whom \\u2013 internal or external).\",\"Yes_or_No__424\":\"Yes\"}","mcq_answer":null,"other_answer":"0","status":"1","created_by":"160","updated_by":160,"created_at":"4\/30\/2021 8:05:28 am","updated_at":"5\/3\/2021 11:30:49 am","deleted_at":null,"report_name":"Ramsey Pilot"}