{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kristine Frick","Short_Answer__292":"JoLynn Sundstrom","Date__293":"06\/05\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"7","Multiple_Choice__301":"Washington","Short_Answer__303":"Blake","Short_Answer__304":"Holmquist","Date__305":"01\/12\/2016","Date__306":"06\/03\/2017","Date__307":"05\/11\/2017","Multiple_Choice__308":"1 Year","Multiple_Choice__309":"1","Short_Answer__310":"Mother's significant other","Multiple_Choice__316":"2","Short_Answer__317":"Delay in child protection receiving records in order to understand risk the biological non-custodial father posed when being considered as a placement preference.","Free_Text__318":"When children were placed in out of home care due to concerns for the mother's ability to protect, a background check found the biological father had harmed a child badly in the state of Wisconsin. The extent of the harm what not clear, and what type of contact between the father and the child was to happen (if at all) was not clear. The mother and grandmother knew of the harm to the WI child and believed visitation between the child and the biological father was ok. The mother was not disclosing the concerns. \r\nSafety planning\/visitation and using family\/biological parents as a placement preference first was considered, however, because the investigation was not open for concerns around the father's unsafe harm to the WI child, the hospital who examined the WI child from 2014, would not release records regarding the extent of the child's injuries, or recommendations for contact between the alleged offender and the children. Specifically the hospital stated the Statute governing Child Protection Investigation data was \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcnot broad enough to release data for another child's injuries'.  The hospital requested a court order be signed by a judge for them to release the records. A judge did grant this request and the agency was eventually able to access the records, however there was significant delay. A criminal complaint was accessed from the state of Wisconsin. There was difficulty in obtaining the CP records as the mother had since moved into a different Minnesota county. There is difficulty for CP investigators accessing information about non-custodial parents due to limitations defined in various legislative statutes, and the impact this has on CP investigations, the difficulty is exacerbated due to the urgency of the information needed during an investigation in order to ensure safety of children.","Free_Text__319":"Contributing to the delay in child protection receiving medical records was that the staff sought to exhaust all options when evidence gathering prior to requesting a court order to obtain the records. Staff decided to seek clarifying collateral knowledge when sources of information presented conflicting perspectives regarding the safety and risk regarding the bio father harming a child in the state of WI.  Considering the preferred preference is to place children with parents, as well as to engage fathers, the staff needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict between prioritizing engaging the non-custodial father and erroring on the side of safety to ensure child protection by not allowing contact. However, the immediacy of the placement did not allow for time, and during a background check the staff found criminal charges about the non-custodial father harming a child in the state of Wisconsin, yet the extent of the harm was not known and caregivers' statements regarding the Wisconsin charges suggested contact would be okay, and they did not have safety concerns for the non-custodial father being considered as a placement preference. \r\nNeeded time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict again, delay to receiving the records was influenced by the complexity of a MN hospital not being able to release medical records immediately regarding a non-related child without a court order. The hospitals interpretation of statute governing Child Protection Investigation data was not broad enough to release data for another non-related child's injuries, including MN Statute 626.556 Sub. 10 (i) 3 & Statutes 13.384 and 144.291 to 144.298, and other relevant data privacy laws like HIPAA. The hospital was not able to make recommendations for what contact\/visitation between the non-custodial biological father and the child, as the information in their records was protected.\r\nWI's interpretation of data privacy also contributed to staff not being able to readily receive records. A difficulty exists in accessing information about non-custodial parents due to limitations defined in various legislative statutes and data privacy laws. The limitations impact child welfare practice, specifically in CP investigations when the delay in receiving records is not aligned with the urgency information is needed during an investigation to ensure safety of children.","Short_Answer__320":"Interviews regarding child death investigation were conducted separately by law enforcement and child protection","Free_Text__321":"The critical incident occurred after 4:30pm. A contracted agency who provides after hours coverage responded to the hospital where law enforcement had also responded.  The after-hours worker made timely face to face with the alleged victim child, and prepared a report of their response and safety assessment to pass on to the investigator to be assigned in the morning. Law enforcement completed many interviews for their criminal investigation that evening, and a neurologist evaluating the child, had also worked a case in 2014 which had profound similarities to the injuries of this child's case. Ironically the alleged offender of the 2014 case was the same alleged offender in this case. A thorough CP investigation was completed with including many adult, child, and collateral interviews. An opportunity to interview with child protection was provided to the alleged offender which he declined. Law enforcement and Child protection accessed and shared investigative reports with one another, and telephone calls occurred between the agencies as they spoke about how to proceed, and sharing information learned, highlighting key concerns, and any topics that they could assist one another with, or request information or questions be asked based on scheduled interviews yet to occur prior to them happening. The interviews were conducted separate and apart from one another because of the dynamics of this case. The role of child protection being different than that of law enforcement for this case was especially noted. Circumstances, such as the incident occurring after hours, it wasn't a sexual abuse case, child protection focused more on the physical and mental health of the mother, and the impact around the subject child's worsening physical condition\/impending death. The consideration for safety and risk assessment interviews needing to take more time than what law enforcement would need, and joining for investigation interviews would not benefit law enforcement. The trajectory of law enforcement's investigation and the trajectory of the child protection investigation unfolded as each discipline gathered relevant information particular to their work areas purpose. Child Protection prioritized being trauma informed and client centered and solution focused for the mother, surviving child, and tending to the grief and loss around the end of life decision the mother was facing at the moment in time. Also noted was the cautiousness around reliability of information the mother could reasonably provide to the agency and\/or information the mother would be able to process from the agency. It was important to use engagement skills in order to resonate a balanced working relationship between child protection and the mother, as she was carrying shock, denial, anger, fear, and resentment towards child protection during her grief stricken emotional state. The agency approached the CP investigation in a non-punitive way with regard to ensuring child safety of the surviving child and assisting the mother and surviving child with supports and coping with grief and loss. A CHIPS opened in Juvenile Court, not to be punitive, but rather to be supportive of the mother and her decisions.  The agency norms of collaborating with law enforcement varies case by case, depending on many variables and dynamics.  In this case, the process of the investigation went as expected due to the nature of how each agency's work with the participants in the family unfolded over time, and the communication that was shared between each agency.","Free_Text__322":"Contributing to interviews being conducted separate by the child protection staff and the law enforcement investigator was that the child fatality occurred after hours, where a contracted after hours child protection crisis response staff responded to the hospital where law enforcement was at the time. The role of the after-hours staff was to respond and observe the victim child, assess safety and risk, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. The after- hours crisis response protocol met the local agencies developed and established protocol for reports that come in to child protection after hours, Department of Human Services guidance around 24\/7 coverage, and mandate in Statute for 24\/7 child protection coverage, that require an immediate\/24 hour response in order to meet face to face timeline. The role of the crisis response staff was not to coordinate a joint investigation with law enforcement. The role of after-hours staff was to document the face to face contact with the alleged victim child, and to develop a safety plan, making safety plan decisions with the non-offending parent for the daytime child protection investigator to review and follow up with the family when assigned to the case the next day in the morning. \r\n Statutory language in 626.556 allows child protection to use law enforcement's investigative data in their child protection investigation. Collaboration between law enforcement and child protection occurred in the days after immediate response to the child death. Child protection and law enforcement exchanged information they each had learned in their separate interviews conducted. Because child protection interviews take more time when a child death occurs, a sensitive approach is used. Priority is given to the trauma the non-offending caregiver is experiencing, and the same priority is given when making contact with collateral contacts. The broader topics covered in child protection interviews required to complete the child protection investigation are perceived as not being efficient or beneficial for the purpose of law enforcement's investigation. There is a perception that child protection's purpose and role is different than law enforcement's purpose and role at the time of first response to a child death, in addition to each work disciplines role and purpose that occurs the next day and thereafter following the immediate response. Law Enforcement's role is to take the lead in the child death investigation the moment a child death is learned. Law enforcement's purpose is to seek evidence to understand what happened and who committed the crime and time is of the essence to ensure public safety.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"LP2: The broader topics covered in CP interviews required to complete the CP investigation are perceived as not being efficient or beneficial for the purpose of law enforcement's investigation.\r\nLP2: There is a perception that child protection's purpose and role is different than law enforcement's purpose and role at the time of first response to a child death, in addition to each work disciplines role and purpose that occurs the next day and thereafter following the immediate response. Law Enforcement's role is to take the lead in the child death investigation the moment a child death is learned. Law enforcement's purpose is to seek evidence to understand what happened and who committed the crime and time is of the essence to ensure public safety. The role of the after-hours CP staff is to respond and observe the victim child, assess immediate safety and risk concerns, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It is not to coordinate future joint investigative efforts with law enforcement","Multiple_Choice__348":"1","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"3","Free_Text__355":"LP1: Contributing to the delay in child protection receiving medical records was that the staff sought to exhaust all options when evidence gathering prior to requesting a court order to obtain the records.\r\nLP1:Needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict again, delay to receiving the records was influenced by the complexity of a MN hospital not being able to release medical records immediately regarding a non-related child without a court order. The hospitals interpretation of statute governing Child Protection Investigation data was not broad enough to release data for another non-related child's injuries, including MN Statute 626.556 Sub. 10 (i) 3 & Statutes 13.384 and 144.291 to 144.298, and other relevant data privacy laws like HIPAA. The hospital was not able to make recommendations for what contact\/visitation between the non-custodial biological father and the child, as the information in their records was protected.\r\nWI's interpretation of data privacy also contributed to staff not being able to readily receive records. A difficulty exists in accessing information about non-custodial parents due to limitations defined in various legislative statutes and data privacy laws. The limitations impact child welfare practice, specifically in CP investigations when the delay in receiving records is not aligned with the urgency information is needed during an investigation to ensure safety of children.\r\nLP2: Contributing to interviews being conducted separate by the CP staff and the LE investigator was that the child fatality occurred after hours, where a contracted after hours CP crisis response staff responded to the hospital where law enforcement was at the time. The after-hours crisis response protocol met the mandate in Statute for 24\/7 CP coverage and DHS guidance around 24\/7 coverage, and was the local agencies developed and established protocol for reports that come in to CP after hours and require an immediate\/24 hour response in order to meet face to face timeline. The role of the after-hours staff was to respond and observe the victim child, assess safety and risk, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It was not to coordinate a joint investigation with law enforcement. The after-hours staff documented the face to face contact with the alleged victim child, and the decision making that went into the developed safety plan with the non-offending parent for the daytime CP investigator to review when assigned to the case in the morning.\r\nThere is a perception that child protection's purpose and role is different than law enforcement's purpose and role at the time of first response to a child death, in addition to each work disciplines role and purpose that occurs the next day and thereafter following the immediate response. Law Enforcement's role is to take the lead in the child death investigation the moment a child death is learned. Law enforcement's purpose is to seek evidence to understand what happened and who committed the crime and time is of the essence to ensure public safety. The role of the after-hours CP staff is to respond and observe the victim child, assess immediate safety and risk concerns, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It is not to coordinate future joint investigative efforts with law enforcement, as there is statutory language in 626.556 which allows CP to use law enforcement's investigative data in their CP investigation.  \r\nNoting that CP interviews take more time when a child death occurs, and a sensitive approach is used, prioritizing the trauma the non-offending caregiver is experiencing, as well as when making contact with collateral contacts. The broader topics covered in CP interviews required to complete the CP investigation are perceived as not being efficient or beneficial for the purpose of law enforcement's investigation. Collaboration between Law Enforcement and Child Protection occurred in the days after immediate response to the child death, sharing information with one another learned in each of their separate interviews conducted.","Multiple_Choice__356":"2","Free_Text__357":"Contributing to the delay in child protection receiving medical records was that the staff sought to exhaust all options when evidence gathering prior to requesting a court order to obtain the records. Staff decided to seek clarifying collateral knowledge when sources of information presented conflicting perspectives regarding the safety and risk regarding the bio father harming a child in the state of WI.  Considering the preferred preference is to place children with parents, as well as to engage fathers, the staff needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict between prioritizing engaging the non-custodial father and erroring on the side of safety to ensure child protection by not allowing contact. However, the immediacy of the placement did not allow for time, and during a background check the staff found criminal charges about the non-custodial father harming a child in the state of Wisconsin, yet the extent of the harm was not known and caregivers' statements regarding the Wisconsin charges suggested contact would be okay, and they did not have safety concerns for the non-custodial father being considered as a placement preference.","Multiple_Choice__368":"3","Free_Text__369":"Needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict again, delay to receiving the records was influenced by the complexity of a MN hospital not being able to release medical records immediately regarding a non-related child without a court order. The hospitals interpretation of statute governing Child Protection Investigation data was not broad enough to release data for another non-related child's injuries, including MN Statute 626.556 Sub. 10 (i) 3 & Statutes 13.384 and 144.291 to 144.298, and other relevant data privacy laws like HIPAA. The hospital was not able to make recommendations for what contact\/visitation between the non-custodial biological father and the child, as the information in their records was protected.\r\nWI's interpretation of data privacy also contributed to staff not being able to readily receive records. A difficulty exists in accessing information about non-custodial parents due to limitations defined in various legislative statutes and data privacy laws. The limitations impact child welfare practice, specifically in CP investigations when the delay in receiving records is not aligned with the urgency information is needed during an investigation to ensure safety of children.","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"LP1: Staff decided to seek clarifying collateral knowledge when sources of information presented conflicting perspectives regarding the safety and risk regarding the bio father harming a child in the state of WI during the CP investigation. Considering the preferred preference is to place children with parents, as well as to engage fathers, the staff needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict between prioritizing engaging the non-custodial father and erroring on the side of safety to ensure child protection by not allowing contact. However, the immediacy of the placement did not allow for time, and during a background check the staff found criminal charges about the non-custodial father harming a child in the state of Wisconsin, yet the extent of the harm was not known and caregivers' statements regarding the Wisconsin charges suggested contact would be okay, and they did not have safety concerns for the non-custodial father being considered as a placement preference. Staff needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict, delay to receiving the records was influenced by the complexity of a MN hospital not being able to release medical records immediately regarding a non-related child without a court order. The hospitals interpretation of statute governing Child Protection Investigation data was not broad enough to release data for another non-related child's injuries, including MN Statute 626.556 Sub. 10 (i) 3 & Statutes 13.384 and 144.291 to 144.298, and other relevant data privacy laws like HIPAA. The hospital was not able to make recommendations for what contact\/visitation between the non-custodial biological father and the child, as the information in their records was protected.\r\nWI's interpretation of data privacy also contributed to staff not being able to readily receive records. A difficulty exists in accessing information about non-custodial parents due to limitations defined in various legislative statutes and data privacy laws. The limitations impact child welfare practice, specifically in CP investigations when the delay in receiving records is not aligned with the urgency information is needed during an investigation to ensure safety of children.\r\nLP2:  Contributing to interviews being conducted separate by the CP staff and the LE investigator was that the child fatality occurred after hours, where a contracted after hours CP crisis response staff responded to the hospital where law enforcement was at the time. The after-hours crisis response protocol met the mandate in Statute for 24\/7 CP coverage and DHS guidance around 24\/7 coverage, and was the local agencies developed and established protocol for reports that come in to CP after hours and require an immediate\/24 hour response in order to meet face to face timeline. The role of the after-hours staff was to respond and observe the victim child, assess safety and risk, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It was not to coordinate a joint investigation with law enforcement. The after-hours staff documented the face to face contact with the alleged victim child, and the decision making that went into the developed safety plan with the non-offending parent for the daytime CP investigator to review when assigned to the case in the morning.\r\nLP2: Best Practice guidance to conduct joint LE and CP investigation is in conflict with 626.556's language which allows CP to use LE's investigative reports.  Contributing to interviews being conducted separate by the CP staff and the LE investigator was that the child fatality occurred after hours, where a contracted after hours CP crisis response staff responded to the hospital where law enforcement was at the time. The after-hours crisis response protocol met the mandate in Statute for 24\/7 CP coverage and DHS guidance around 24\/7 coverage, and was the local agencies developed and established protocol for reports that come in to CP after hours and require an immediate\/24 hour response in order to meet face to face timeline. The role of the after-hours staff was to respond and observe the victim child, assess safety and risk, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It was not to coordinate a joint investigation with law enforcement. The after-hours staff documented the face to face contact with the alleged victim child, and the decision making that went into the developed safety plan with the non-offending parent for the daytime CP investigator to review when assigned to the case in the morning.\r\nThere is a perception that child protection's purpose and role is different than law enforcement's purpose and role at the time of first response to a child death, in addition to each work disciplines role and purpose that occurs the next day and thereafter following the immediate response. Law Enforcement's role is to take the lead in the child death investigation the moment a child death is learned. Law enforcement's purpose is to seek evidence to understand what happened and who committed the crime and time is of the essence to ensure public safety. The role of the after-hours CP staff is to respond and observe the victim child, assess immediate safety and risk concerns, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It is not to coordinate future joint investigative efforts with law enforcement, as there is statutory language in 626.556 which allows CP to use law enforcement's investigative data in their CP investigation.  \r\nNoting that CP interviews take more time when a child death occurs, and a sensitive approach is used, prioritizing the trauma the non-offending caregiver is experiencing, as well as when making contact with collateral contacts. The broader topics covered in CP interviews required to complete the CP investigation are perceived as not being efficient or beneficial for the purpose of law enforcement's investigation. Collaboration between Law Enforcement and Child Protection occurred in the days after immediate response to the child death, sharing information with one another learned in each of their separate interviews conducted.","Multiple_Choice__360":"2","Free_Text__361":"LP2: There is a perception that child protection's purpose and role is different than law enforcement's purpose and role at the time of first response to a child death, in addition to each work disciplines role and purpose that occurs the next day and thereafter following the immediate response. Law Enforcement's role is to take the lead in the child death investigation the moment a child death is learned. Law enforcement's purpose is to seek evidence to understand what happened and who committed the crime and time is of the essence to ensure public safety. The role of the after-hours CP staff is to respond and observe the victim child, assess immediate safety and risk concerns, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It is not to coordinate future joint investigative efforts with law enforcement, as there is statutory language in 626.556 which allows CP to use law enforcement's investigative data in their CP investigation.  \r\nNoting that CP interviews take more time when a child death occurs, and a sensitive approach is used, prioritizing the trauma the non-offending caregiver is experiencing, as well as when making contact with collateral contacts. The broader topics covered in CP interviews required to complete the CP investigation are perceived as not being efficient or beneficial for the purpose of law enforcement's investigation. Collaboration between Law Enforcement and Child Protection occurred in the days after immediate response to the child death, sharing information with one another learned in each of their separate interviews conducted.","Multiple_Choice__362":"2","Free_Text__363":"LP1: Contributing to the delay in child protection receiving medical records was that the staff sought to exhaust all options when evidence gathering prior to requesting a court order to obtain the records. Staff decided to seek clarifying collateral knowledge when sources of information presented conflicting perspectives regarding the safety and risk regarding the bio father harming a child in the state of WI.  Considering the preferred preference is to place children with parents, as well as to engage fathers, the staff needed time to resolve and clarify the goal conflict between prioritizing engaging the non-custodial father and erroring on the side of safety to ensure child protection by not allowing contact. However, the immediacy of the placement did not allow for time, and during a background check the staff found criminal charges about the non-custodial father harming a child in the state of Wisconsin, yet the extent of the harm was not known and caregivers' statements regarding the Wisconsin charges suggested contact would be okay, and they did not have safety concerns for the non-custodial father being considered as a placement preference.","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"2","Free_Text__367":"LP2: Contributing to interviews being conducted separate by the CP staff and the LE investigator was that the child fatality occurred after hours, where a (Washington County) contracted after hours CP crisis response staff responded to the hospital where law enforcement was at the time. The after-hours crisis response protocol met the mandate in Statute for 24\/7 CP coverage and DHS guidance around 24\/7 coverage, and was the local agencies developed and established protocol for reports that come in to CP after hours and require an immediate\/24 hour response in order to meet face to face timeline. The role of the after-hours staff was to respond and observe the victim child, assess safety and risk, and develop a safety plan with the non-offending caregiver. It was not to coordinate a joint investigation with law enforcement. The after-hours staff documented the face to face contact with the alleged victim child, and the decision making that went into the developed safety plan with the non-offending parent for the daytime CP investigator to review when assigned to the case in the morning.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}