{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Ryan Hartneck","Short_Answer__292":"Paul Lennander","Date__293":"01\/11\/2018","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"7","Multiple_Choice__301":"Anoka","Short_Answer__303":"Kaidyn","Short_Answer__304":"Troy","Date__305":"03\/16\/2004","Date__307":"01\/11\/2018","Multiple_Choice__308":"13 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"2","Short_Answer__310":"Father","Short_Answer__311":"Father's partner","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"Child protection report met screen in criteria for Neglect according to the Intake, Screening, and Response Path Guidelines, however, the child protection report was screened out","Free_Text__318":"Anoka County's Child Protection Screening area has team of four screeners during their traditional daytime hours and rely on one another for consultation and decision making. The decisions made during the screening of this case were done in consultation with one another. The first call about the subject child's condition came from the Father of the children, who reported allegations of inadequate supervision and medical neglect.  The Father had made allegations that his girlfriend was using drugs and that had left a child on his own while out selling drugs. The Father had reported that the hospital was going to make a report of medical neglect, but the screener said the report was not received. \r\n\r\nThe screeners initial impression was that this case was one of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153back and forth retaliation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d between the parents.  Consultation occurred with the other screeners and with law enforcement who was with the subject child's mother at the hospital.  They also believed this to be a report made out of retaliation which supported the decision to screen the report out.  \r\n\r\nFurther influencing the decision to screen the report out, was that the report did not have any documentation which supported the medical neglect or the inadequate supervision. \r\n\r\nThe screener also stated that they generally have some discretion with taking allegations of medical neglect and following up of medical providers, but that they do rely on medical documentation when screening the report. If they do have unanswered questions, they can follow up with either extended screening (health and welfare checks or follow up with reporters and professionals). In this situation, due to the impression that this was a divorce\/retaliation situation, they did not follow up with the medical provider.","Free_Text__319":"The CP report being screened-out even though it met screening guidelines was influenced by the agency's perception that the report was not credible and that the worker felt safe with the screening decision. Agency staff reported that there is considerable complexity in screening guidelines surrounding medical neglect and neglect \u00e2\u20ac\u201c failure to provide adequate care. There is a general expectation that all information needs to be in the report to make a screening decision, and the perception of not enough evidence included in the report to screen-in influenced the decision to screen the report out. In addition to this, the agency had a history of receiving these types of reports (diabetes related), which are difficult to screen due to the complexity of the disease process and the child's condition (they often lend themselves to alternative explanations) so external consultation occurs often with law enforcement (LE) in these cases. The LE agency was aware of the situation and never made a CP report or signed a hold for the children after their involvement (there is reliance on LE for initial safety assessment when they are involved) further dampening the credibility of the report. In this case, the report was made by the child's father against his estranged girlfriend which additionally led the screener to question the credibility of the report. \r\nDHS also had issued guidance around the utilization of a screening team when making screening decisions. After the group consultation, that included consideration of their history of receiving these types of reports and the absence of documented LE or hospital concerns or reports, staff believed that the report did not meet the screen in criteria.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"The CP report being screened-out even though it met screening guidelines was influenced by the agency's perception that the report was not credible and that the worker felt safe with the screening decision. \r\n\r\nIn addition to this, the agency had a history of receiving these types of reports (diabetes related), which are difficult to screen due to the complexity of the disease process and the child's condition (they often lend themselves to alternative explanations) so external consultation occurs often with law enforcement (LE) in these cases. The LE agency was aware of the situation and never made a CP report or signed a hold for the children after their involvement (there is reliance on LE for initial safety assessment when they are involved) further dampening the credibility of the report.","Multiple_Choice__348":"0","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"0","Multiple_Choice__356":"0","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"2","Free_Text__359":"Agency staff reported that there is considerable complexity in screening guidelines surrounding medical neglect and neglect \u00e2\u20ac\u201c failure to provide adequate care.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"0","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"0","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}