{"report_id":251,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"318","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The case was assigned to the worker on a Monday as this case came in over the weekend and the RRT worker initially got the case. A 72-hour hold had been put on the surviving siblings at the time the worker was assigned the case, which influenced the worker having a court consultation with the county attorney's office within 3 days of being assigned the case. During the court consult the position of the county attorney's office was to file a TPR. The worker, as well as some supervisors and managers did not want to file a TPR. Rather, the agency suggested filing a CHIPS petition and offering the family a case plan. Statute influenced the county attorney's office position to file a TPR as they referred to statute during the discussions the agency had with them as what supported their decision. The worker felt the agency didn't have a say in the decision and had no other option than to sign the TPR petition. The worker stated that she felt forced to take a stance she didn't agree with and would be labeled \u00e2\u20ac\u0153problematic\u00e2\u20ac\u009d had she not signed the petition. It was learned in the debriefings that this case was handled differently than how other cases have been handled and outside the norm of agency practice, as every decision on the case needed to go through the county attorney's office.\r\nThe agency held a Safe and Connected consultation to assist in planning for working with the family (i.e. offering a case plan) and when it was shared with the county attorney's office, the agency was told that a case plan would not be offered to the family, as well as a family group conference as these are case planning services and was told to remove the information from the file.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:22:42 am","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 10:22:42 am","id":27743}