{"report_id":249,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The decision to change placement was influenced by the need to find permanency for the identified child and her sibling.  Her current placement had indicated that they were not a permanency option for the subject child and her sibling.  Due to this and the fact that there are both state and federal pressures with statue and guidance to achieve timely permanency, staff were placed in a position in which they needed to locate and move the subject child and her sibling to a placement option that would be permanent for her and her brother.  Further contributing to this pressure that staff felt was that the Judge granted a TPR in this case without having an identified permanency option and the county attorney did not want the case to go to trial.  Further impacting this change of placement and in order for it to occur quickly was that the current relative provider indicated to staff that they were going to be moving out of state in the near future and that they would not be able to take the children with them.  \r\n\r\nLastly, the older sibling in this case had many identified mental and behavioral health needs.  As a result this became staff's focus of attention and believed that a placement that could meet his complex mental and behavioral needs was critically important.   It was important for staff to keep both children together, and place with them with a relative that could be a permanency option for both of them.  Staff noted that the 10 best interest factors influenced this, in addition to identifying placements in which can support the children's needs.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:08:45 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:08:45 am","id":27502}