Prior to the agency being involved this was a family arranged plan and the father was both cooperative with the agency and was considered a relative under Minnesota State Statute 260C.212 subd 2 – placement decisions based on best interests of the child (a) (2). The 13 year child also considered father #2 to be his father. The agency was working to engage the fathers in this case as a result of recent pressures to engage fathers whenever possible.  Further supporting this decision was the need to keep all siblings together and with a relative if possible which is influenced by both state and federal guidance around placement with relatives and sibling placement.  Furthermore, there was no discussion of licensing father #2 for the non-biological child in his care or North Star funding because the worker didn't think this was possible since father #2 was undocumented and didn't qualify for a lot of resources.  Additionally, Father #2 was also not requesting any financial assistance for any of the children in his care which further supported not pursing father #2 being licensed.  

In cases such as this the bureaucracy of licensing requirements also influences children being placed in homes that may be safe however, licensable due to the perceived bureaucracy within the licensing process.  

The judge ordering protective supervision with father #2 of all the children was also a factor in supporting the agency to not pursue licensing father #2.
