Placement in a home and TLC to a caregiver with a prior maltreatment determination of sexual abuse of a child was influenced by the fact that the worker was not aware of the prior determination.  This was supported by inconsistent agency practices of searching each parent in SSIS. Limitations occur within the SSIS search function supporting inconsistent practices searching parents involved in CP. Also, SSIS guidance and training encourages staff to enter cases under the mother's name, which can influence intake staff only searching the mother's history.  This information is then passed on to the investigator with the report.  Further contributing to this was the fact that typical practice of obtaining all background data on families is done by the investigation unit.  As a result, the field staff did not look for this information as it was outside typical field practice to do so and this was not indicated to staff during any type of case transfer meeting.  Additionally, the information shared during case transfer meetings is not consistent among staff.  Further impacting case transfer meetings are the multiple different locations agency staff work out of.

Further influencing this learning point was the timing of the maltreatment determination which occurred six years prior to the placement and TLC. Further supporting this decision was that there was a family arrangement in place with this father prior to agency involvement.  This decision was supported by federal, state, and local agency policy that encourages agencies to engage and place with fathers whenever possible. 

Competing priorities such as staff's attention to the mother's substance use while pregnant and subsequent work on father one's TPR influenced placement and TLC with father two. Staff also noted that the amount of required documentation on each case and an increase in her workload consumed her time and attention, further impacting her work on this specific case.  Additionally, the agency did their routine criminal history checks in intake using MNCIS, which further supported the agency being unaware of the father's history because he was not charged, therefore this information was not in MNCIS leading the staff to believe that the father had no prior history.
