The decision for child protection to close the case management workgroup without providing services to the mother was supported by a family court proceeding in a different county jurisdiction granting temporary physical custody to the father at the same time when the local Child Protection agency prepared a Child in Need of Protection and/or Services (CHIPS) petition and submitted it to their County Attorney's office.  Unaware of family court involvement in the neighboring county, or strategically using a ‘wait and see' approach, the County Attorney's Office reviewed the CHIPS petition, contemplating evidence required to meet the burden of proof standard for the requested CHIPS action. The neighboring county's family court proceeding occurred as scheduled, and resulted in a stipulated agreement by the parties.  The stipulated agreement impacted the course of action the County Attorney's Office was allowed to take by law, as criteria and evidence to prove child at risk or in danger was no longer met after the neighboring county's family court granted temporary physical custody of the child to the father. When co-occurring court proceedings take place, it is common practice for the court in which the social services agency requested CHIPS to retain venue for the case. However, under the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, Rule 23. INTERVENTION, other options exists should certain scenarios arise. Due to the child's circumstances and family participants coming to an agreement, the family court found that it was in the best interest of the child to allow the father to intervene using the family court venue, and granted the change of the child's physical residence to the father's home. The father was not an alleged offender and had been assessed by the child protection agency under the open case.  Safety and Decision Making Tools determined the child's change in residence to the father's home was safe and had low risk. Accordingly, the mother did not have the child in her care after the family court order, which changed the criteria under which child protection could be involved. Child protection had no legal jurisdiction to continue working with the mother, as there was no longer an unsafe child in her care. This additionally dismissed the need to pursue a CHIPS. The mother's minimal engagement in previous family based preventative services, further supported the agency's decision to close the case management workgroup without providing voluntary case management services to the mother.