The father not being added as a participant in the workgroup was influenced by worker transitions within the agency as well as SSIS functionality and workload levels. The critical incident case came into the agency during after-hours. The after-hours process was new for the agency and was in process regarding smoothing out the progression of case duties when cases come in after-hours. As a result of this, the after-hours worker is responsible for completing initial interviews when needed and is also tasked with gathering as much information as available at the time and sharing this information with the worker that takes the case from there. In this case, the father was not able to be interviewed during the after-hours response as he was not a resident of the home. When the case was transferred from the after-hours worker to the assigned investigator, communication gaps existed regarding family information and as a result, it was not relayed that the father was not added as a participant. In addition to this, the investigator that received the case from the after-hours worker was experiencing high caseload levels due to turnover within the agency. This caseload was managed through a rotation schedule for getting cases, which doesn't account for cases the worker already has. As a result of this high caseload pressure, the worker was sacrificing some case duties, in this case adding participants, in order to prioritize safety for children on her caseload. 
Finally, at completion of a case, there is a case consultation with supervisors. It was reported that the consultations do not pertain to every detail of the case. Supporting this oversight in not adding the father as a participant was the fact that while closing the case in SSIS, there is not a data-cleanup function that pertains to father-related fields, so the worker was not directed to add him. Generally, SSIS is focused on mothers and not fathers.