{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"324","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Debrief with CP Staff related to this case:\r\nStaff noted that she had good rapport with the mother and the mother also struggled with mental health issues.  The case was open for almost a year before and as a result the agency was automatically at permanency timelines due to the time that the child was out of home prior to this case opening.   This influenced the agency's decision to move towards permanent custody to the agency as there were not any other options as mom wasn't not fulfilling her case plan requirements and there were not any relatives that could care for the subject child.  Additionally, the Tribe and the mother of the subject child were supportive of this plan, however, they were not in support of a TPR. \r\n\r\nThe agency, Tribe, and mother believed that this was the best option for the subject child to ensure that she could get her mental and developmental needs met as the subject child would need ongoing assistance in her day to day functioning. This combination (dual diagnoses) made it challenging to locate placements for the subject child\r\n\r\nIt was also difficult to engage the Tribe throughout the life of the case, despite multiple efforts.  This made it difficult to obtain guidance and consultation from the Tribe throughout the case.  It was difficult to get a response back from the Tribal worker. In order to move towards permanency they ended up sending an affidavit to the Tribe for a QEW as they were never able to get one and needed one to move forward with permanency for the subject child.  Staff also noted that the staff at the Tribe did not seem to care for the mother.  The mother reported to the county worker that she did not feel supported by the tribal worker and tried to request a new worker through the Tribe.  It was reported that the tribal worker did not have anything positive to say about the family and did not provide staff at the county any other relatives or tribal options for permanency.  This further contributed to the difficulty in finding other relatives or tribal members to take the subject child given her complex needs.  \r\n\r\nFurther impacting the decision to not place with known relatives was that all relatives known to the agency had at some point been abusive or neglectful towards the subject child.    \r\n\r\nDebrief with CMH Staff related to this case:\r\nStaff noted that the subject child had such significant needs and that a relative would not be able to care for her and mom was not able to care for her. They tried a foster care home, however, that was unsuccessful due to the subject child's multiple needs, especially given her history of aggression. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAdditional Information:\r\n\r\nReviewers were unable to talk with the Tribal worker or have her or others from the Tribe participate in the mapping.  However, the Tribal Liaison for the Tribe through the Minneapolis American Indian Center indicated that the Tribal worker is very hard to catch because she does the Tribes Child Protection Services as well as the out of state ICWA cases.   She's in high demand and kind of a one woman operation.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:16:53 pm","id":33382}