{"Multiple_Choice__291":"Kristine Frick","Short_Answer__292":"Kari Rude","Date__293":"08\/30\/2017","Multiple_Choice__294":"Near Fatality","Yes_or_No__295":"No","Multiple_Choice__300":"3","Multiple_Choice__301":"Douglas","Short_Answer__303":"Hayden","Short_Answer__304":"Stricker","Date__305":"03\/12\/2015","Date__307":"06\/27\/2017","Multiple_Choice__308":"2 Years","Multiple_Choice__309":"2","Short_Answer__310":"Mother","Short_Answer__311":"Father","Multiple_Choice__316":"1","Short_Answer__317":"The sibling children were observed\/interviewed two weeks before investigation closed.","Free_Text__318":"Several factors influenced the sibling children being observed\/interviewed two weeks before the CP investigation closed. Law enforcement had responded initially to the near fatal drowning scene and did not place the subject child or sibling children on a 72 hour hold. They were viewing this incident as a tragic accident and did not pursue criminal charges or open a criminal investigation. It was the perspective of the worker that law enforcement did not want to add \u00e2\u20ac\u0153insult to injury\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as no one knew if the subject child would survive influencing the decision to observed\/interview the sibling children two weeks before CP investigation closed was that law enforcement had also not determined the maternal grandparents to be unsafe caregivers, therefore the sibling children were presumed safe with them.  There was no imminent reasons to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153force\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the family to have the sibling children interviewed\/observed sooner.  By engaging the family at their pace and tone, CP was eventually at least able to get some information from the sibling.  Typically law enforcement is driving the CP investigations, but they were not in this case.  Since law enforcement had not placed a 72 hour hold on the children, allowed them to go with maternal grandparents, and that there was not a criminal investigation opened, understanding child protection's role was different for this case than normal and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153harder to wrap his\/her head around\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Not having law enforcement involvement in this case posed challenges in this CP investigation. Law enforcement told the parent's that they were not pursuing criminal charges on the scene, so when CP arrived at the hospital to interview and see the subject child, there was greater backlash from the parents. It was hard to explain to the family the role differences between CP and Law Enforcement and that although the standards for criminal charges had not been met, the standard for a child protection investigation for the suspected maltreatment had been met. \r\nSince there was not court involvement the investigators role became one of engaging the family in the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153least invasive way possible\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in order to gather the best information possible.  Engaging the family this way mitigated the risk of the family being non-cooperative and the local agency not having the authority to stay involved without a court order. \r\nThe parents were often traveling to hospitals outside of their county to be with the subject child, so they were not readily available or trusting of what was happening when they were not around.  The agency was also mindful that the parents were facing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153end of life\u00e2\u20ac\u009d decisions, and not knowing from day to day if the subject child was going to survive.  It was an intense reality for them and the local agency gave them time to work through that.\r\nRegarding the sibling children, the family was initially not compliant with allowing the local agency access to them for observation and interview. Child Protection used engagement strategies, and provided the family options for how the verbal sibling child could be interviewed, and infant be observed. The maternal grandparents and parents to the children did finally allow the interview and observation to take place, on the terms that the maternal grandfather would be allowed to sit in with the sibling child during the interview.\r\nThe CP investigator consulted with the supervisor at multiple points in the investigation. The supervisor was available when needed for consultation and the investigator felt safe in openly discussing the strengths and needs of the case with the supervisor. He\/she trusted the advice and direction given by the supervisor. Maltreatment was determined for Neglect \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Inadequate supervision to the subject child by the mother and father.  Maltreatment was also determined for an added allegation of Neglect - Failure to protect from serious endangerment to the subject child by his mother and father. Mother, father, and sibling child, expressed the mother and father were not present with the subject child when he experienced the near fatal drowning. The local agency decided to proceed in transitioning to case management from investigation by preparing a CHIPS petition, noting the determination of maltreatment, circumstances of the near fatal incident, and other risk factors, including the vulnerability of the subject child due to high medical needs.","Free_Text__319":"The critical incident occurred during non-child protection office hours during the summer when school was not in session. The date and time of the critical incident influenced staff's ability to access the sibling children to observe\/interview them without parental consent. First responders and law enforcement perceived the critical incident as accidental, and while on scene, communicated to the family that they were not pursuing criminal charges. Law enforcement did not perceive a need to cross report the accidental critical incident to child protection, nor did other mandated reporters who had contact with the family at the time of the incident. Law enforcement did not have safety concerns for the sibling children and they did not pursue an emergency 72 hour hold at the time of the critical incident. Law enforcement considered the grandparents to be safe caregivers and the sibling children were presumed safe in their care.\r\nDiffering perspectives exist between law enforcement and child protection about each of their roles at times when critical incidents occur. The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing.\r\nThe parents, coping with trauma induced by hearing the hospital's knowledge of the subject child's near death condition, faced potential end of life decisions and travelled to be with the subject child who was transported to a hospital outside of the county's jurisdiction. The parents were not trusting of child protection's involvement when child protection made contact with the family, as their involvement was perceived as conflicting to what law enforcement had communicated to them about not opening a criminal investigation. When child protection staff attempted to engage with the family, they were met with resistance. The grandparents refused child protection access to the sibling children. Helping the family understand the role differences between child protection and law enforcement was difficult for the staff. The family's confusion and resistance impacted staff's ability to observe\/interview the sibling children in a timely manner.\r\nUsing a least invasive approach with the family was used by staff to best reduce the risk of the family continuing to resist child protection involvement, and this approach also mitigated the barrier of not having a formal process (criminal charges and court involvement) available to support child protection involvement at the time. Strategically, the local agency prioritized giving the parent's time to work through the trauma of the critical incident, as there was no imminent concern for safety to the children per law enforcement's safety assessment of the children and family at the time they had contact during the critical incident. Considering the totality of the circumstances  , being sensitive to the family's traumatic reality was prioritized as a method of family engagement, and a tradeoff decision to not make timely face to face with the sibling children was made.\r\n\r\nUnderstanding differences exist across the state regarding culture within County Attorney Offices, including office size, caseloads size, attorneys available to work cases, individual attorney's methods used to practice law, (potentially anticipating case outcomes prior to filing petitions), and potentially serving multiple roles within their office, etc. The county attorney's office, also being influenced by county board decisions, further complicated the office's ability to communicate advice to child protection in a timely manner, contributing to the delay in observing\/interviewing the sibling children.   Furthermore, staff did not know if their request to the county attorney's office to petition the court for a court order to observe\/ interview the children would be filed by the county attorney, and\/or if filed, granted by the court. Considering child protection's mental model shaped from past experience (to not get court orders granted which they had requested in the past), child protection staff utilized a workaround\/adaptation to their approach used with the children and family in order to engage and assess the safety of the sibling children, contributing to staff observing\/interviewing the sibling children two weeks before the investigation closed.","Multiple_Choice__346":"2","Free_Text__347":"Staff did not know if their request to the county attorney's office to petition the court for a court order to observe\/ interview the children would be filed by the county attorney, and\/or if filed, granted by the court. Considering child protection's mental model shaped from past experience (to not get court orders granted which they had requested in the past), child protection staff utilized a workaround\/adaptation to their approach used with the children and family in order to engage and assess the safety of the sibling children, contributing to staff observing\/interviewing the sibling children two weeks before the investigation closed.","Multiple_Choice__348":"1","Multiple_Choice__350":"0","Multiple_Choice__352":"0","Multiple_Choice__354":"3","Free_Text__355":"1.) CP and County Attorney Office and Judge barrier exists impacting CP's ability to make face to face with sibling children efficiently and timely. \r\nConsidering child protection's mental model shaped from past experience (to not get court orders granted which they had requested in the past), child protection staff utilized a workaround\/adaptation to their approach used with the children and family in order to engage and assess the safety of the sibling children, contributing to staff observing\/interviewing the sibling children two weeks before the investigation closed. \r\n2.)  Impact to trajectory of CP practice was evidenced significantly by LE not cross reporting the critical incident to CP. \r\nLaw enforcement did not perceive a need to cross report the accidental critical incident to child protection, nor did other mandated reporters who had contact with the family at the time of the incident. Law enforcement did not have safety concerns for the sibling children and they did not pursue an emergency 72 hour hold at the time of the critical incident. Law enforcement considered the grandparents to be safe caregivers and the sibling children were presumed safe in their care. Differing perspectives exist between law enforcement and child protection about each of their roles at times when critical incidents occur. The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing. \r\n\r\nThe parents were not trusting of child protection's involvement when child protection made contact with the family, as their involvement was perceived as conflicting to what law enforcement had communicated to them about not opening a criminal investigation. When child protection staff attempted to engage with the family, they were met with resistance. The grandparents refused child protection access to the sibling children. Helping the family understand the role differences between child protection and law enforcement was difficult for the staff. The family's confusion and resistance impacted staff's ability to observe\/interview the sibling children in a timely manner.","Multiple_Choice__356":"2","Free_Text__357":"Law enforcement did not perceive a need to cross report the accidental critical incident to child protection, nor did other mandated reporters who had contact with the family at the time of the incident. Law enforcement did not have safety concerns for the sibling children and they did not pursue an emergency 72 hour hold at the time of the critical incident. Law enforcement considered the grandparents to be safe caregivers and the sibling children were presumed safe in their care.\r\nDiffering perspectives exist between law enforcement and child protection about each of their roles at times when critical incidents occur. The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing.","Multiple_Choice__368":"0","Multiple_Choice__358":"3","Free_Text__359":"1.) The two work disciplines follow different definitions of child safety and alleged neglect, based on MN state laws that govern and guide their individual work, influencing the frontline's mental models, depending on which code of law is being referenced, criminal or juvenile law. Additionally, the burden of proof standards are different for criminal law and child protection law. Law enforcement's standard of probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher burden to meet than child protection's standard of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing.\r\n\r\n2.) Using a least invasive approach with the family was used by staff to best reduce the risk of the family continuing to resist child protection involvement, and this approach also mitigated the barrier of not having a formal process (criminal charges and court involvement) available to support child protection involvement at the time. Strategically, the local agency prioritized giving the parent's time to work through the trauma of the critical incident, as there was no imminent concern for safety to the children per law enforcement's safety assessment of the children and family at the time they had contact during the critical incident. Considering the totality of the circumstances, being sensitive to the family's traumatic reality was prioritized as a method of family engagement, and a tradeoff decision to not make timely face to face with the sibling children was made.","Multiple_Choice__360":"0","Multiple_Choice__362":"2","Free_Text__363":"Using a least invasive approach with the family was used by staff to best reduce the risk of the family continuing to resist child protection involvement, and this approach also mitigated the barrier of not having a formal process (criminal charges and court involvement) available to support child protection involvement at the time.","Multiple_Choice__364":"0","Multiple_Choice__366":"2","Free_Text__367":"Strategically, the local agency prioritized giving the parent's time to work through the trauma of the critical incident, as there was no imminent concern for safety to the children per law enforcement's safety assessment of the children and family at the time they had contact during the critical incident. Considering the totality of the circumstances, being sensitive to the family's traumatic reality was prioritized as a method of family engagement, and a tradeoff decision to not make timely face to face with the sibling children was made.","Yes_or_No__370":"Yes"}