{"report_id":326,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"318","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Debrief with Child Protection Staff related to this case:\r\nStaff debriefed noted that this case was difficult as the subject child's mother was only in this county for a short time once the case opened and quickly left the county.  This created challenges in engaging the mother in her case planning for reunification and identifying relative placement options that would support alternate permanency planning.  Limited relatives were provided to the agency by the mother as possible relative placement options. When relatives were given as placement options it was difficult for the agency staff to get a hold of them to explore if they would be a permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  This agency worked to coordinate case work with the family's out of state Tribe in addition to the other counties in which were serving the mother and subject child's sibling.  Staff noted difficulties in coordinating case work including the achievement of permanency for the subject child's sibling with both the Tribe and other counties.  This included transferring the case to other counties so the family could be better served and getting consultation from the Tribe on other options.  Further creating barriers for staff to provide case management services to the best of their ability was mom's absence and inability to locate and work with mom.  \r\nStaff felt that the system created barriers to best serve this family together as the family was working with three counties and her sibling (the subject child) was placed somewhere else across the state.  This created challenges to maintain and preserve this sibling relationship when two counties were involved, and the siblings were placed so far away from one another.  \r\nFurther impacting staff's ability to move to permanency with the subject child's sibling was that the Tribal worker was very difficult to get a hold of to provide both consultation on the case and a QEW.  It was staff's perception that a QEW needed to attend a hearing in order for the agency to move to permanency and the Tribe would not respond and assist with a QEW, impacting movement towards permanency.  \r\nFurthermore, not having access to the Tribes records or knowing if South Dakota had been involved with the family impacted staff's ability to explore other relatives and\/or kin options for the subject child's sibling as permanency options.  \r\nAdditionally, the subject child's sibling had significant needs that included mental health, trauma, and chemical dependency.  It was difficult to find a placement facility that could meet this child's needs.  Her high level of needs impacted her being in a lesser restrictive setting including being able to reunifying with her mother and residing with relatives.\r\nFurther contributing to not achieving permanency in this case are the timelines.  They are not realistic when you have a mother like this with a long history of chemical dependency problems.  It can take 30 days to obtain a rule 25 assessment and then the waitlist for treatment can be 3-4 months.  Once in treatment, it can be another 3-6 months putting you almost at the 12 month permanency timelines.  Staff indicated that they are simply not realistic with the needs of families such as this one.  \r\nStaff indicated challenges occurred in communicating and coordinating with the Tribe regarding if this family were Tribal members, further impacting movement towards permanency in this case.  Communication challenges continued throughout the case influencing the agency's ability to move towards permanency.  \r\nThe tribal worker indicated to agency staff that she was not able to be directly involved due to capacity and the children being off the reservation.  When agency asked about other family members as permanency options for the subject child's sibling, the Tribal worker further indicated to staff that the family was not good  Staff noted that it was difficult to obtain other Tribal members names as a result of the limited communication with the Tribal worker.  Staff noted that they would call, email, and fax, and the Tribal worker was very difficult to get a hold of, often not responding, and not appearing at hearings.  This impacted the agency's ability to plan and coordinate permanency planning options for the subject child's sibling.\t\r\nAdditional barriers noted in this case by staff included being able to share information with other counties and with the Tribe.  Due to the number of case load tasks and documentation requirements staff noted limitations in being able to dig up additional history elsewhere that may have identified other permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  \r\nTrying to support reunification, the agency attempted to transfer jurisdiction to a county where mom was located, however, that county denied the transfer further contributing to delays in reunification and identifying others that may be able to take the child.  The agency also tried to transfer the case to the county where the subject child was placed so that the siblings could be closer, however, this did not occur and further impacted the agency achieving permanency for the subject child's sibling\r\nStaff indicated that when it is difficult to engage with families it can be can create barriers to achieving permanency for children such as in this case.   Contributing to staff feeling like they cannot engage meaningfully is their high caseloads, the requirement to time report at 100% of their time in addition to all of the documentation requirements within SSIS.  \r\nFurther supporting permanency not being achieved was that the subject child's sibling did not want to be reunified with her mother and did not want to live with her family as she did not think they would be healthy for her.  When she was 16, staff engaged her in what she wanted for permanency.   She also told staff that she felt supported in her group home and wanted to age out from there.  \r\n\r\nDebrief with CMH worker related to this case:\r\nStaff noted that her primary focus as a CMH worker was to provide support for subject child's sibling's mental health.  Staff reported that the subject child's sibling has a lot of needs including her mental health, chemical dependency and was also a victim of sex trafficking. Due to her age the main focus was on Independent Living.  Staff also indicated that they were following the recommendations of the doctor who recommended long term residential placement to best meet the subject child's needs.  This staff noted that in her role she has worked with very few Native American children.  Staff debriefed indicated that finding placements for children like the subject child's sibling was very difficult due to her needs-particularly around self-harm.  It was staff's perception that she would do well for a while and then sabotage her recovery.  Staff further indicated that she believed that the sibling child did not have a lot of family support but felt supported by the group home staff.  The subject child's sibling has also indicated to staff that she would like to age out of that group home and go on to Job Corps.  It was also noted that there are Native American workers at the group home where the child is and that they reportedly connect the sibling child to some of her cultural practices.  \r\nWhen relatives were explored such as the aunt and grandma, they both turned out to not be permanency options for the subject child's sibling.  The CMH worker noted that this was managed by the CP worker.  It was also staff's perception that the requirements for ICWA and relative placements was new for them as CMH staff.  \r\nFurther supporting the decision for the subject child's sibling to age out of foster care was that the child was asked what she wanted to do-what she thought was best for her and that those working with her would support that.   Initially, the child indicated (at age 17) that she wanted to try and live with her grandma.  As a result the agency began planning for this, however, shortly after the child decided that she changed her mind and indicated she would like to attend Job Corps.","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":33376}