Answer: There is no validation between disposition and safety analysis. 

 

There is a "glitch" when you are trying to remove a child when there is not a founded disposition.  But there are work arounds to that glitch.  The FACIS system struggles with removing a child when there is no identified victim.  And unless you have a founded disposition, there is no identified victim. If you have problems with FACIS, you can call the Help Desk at 5-5623 or can contact the CPS consultant for your branch.

Answer: The six questions (the extent of maltreatment, the circumstances surrounding the maltreatment, child functioning, adult functioning, parent functioning, and disciplinary practices) are a guide for supervisors and workers to use when they  sit down and have a discussion about "is the child safe or not."  A summary of why the child is safe or unsafe is what needs to be documented in the safety analysis section.  When answering the question whether the child is safe or not, you need to take a look at how the safety threat is occurring in the family, if the child is vulnerable to that safety threat and if you have a parent that can and will protect.  

The safety threat section can be utilized to not only identify the safety threat but also talk about how it is occurring in the family.  (the other 6 questions: frequency, duration, predictability, specified times, parent or family condition, influences to parent or family condition)    The six questions (the extent of the maltreatment, the circumstances surrounding the maltreatment, child functioning, adult functioning, parent functioning and disciplinary practices) should be answered in the assessment activity section not necessarily literally as a question and answer. However, when you read the assessment one should then, as the reader, know the answers to those six questions.  These six questions could be used as a guide for the meat of the assessment activities.

a.  So, should people continue to put most of the information in the Assessment Activities section? 

 

The assessment activity section is the place to tell the story.  Using the 6 questions as a guide when you are doing this is appropriate.  FACIS is a dated system with many flaws.  We are limited to the character space we have in documenting the assessment.  We do not have enough character space so we are trying to make due with FACIS until OR-Kids is in use in 2010.  It is frustrating.  One document, Documenting CPS Assessment Activities 08, is one of the tools developed by the CPS program to outline appropriate documentation of the assessment in FACIS.
 
b.  On-going workers are not feeling comfortable with "teasing out" how the safety threats are occurring uniquely in a family from the assessment (in a short amount of time). 

 

The other 6 questions (frequency, duration, predictability, etc) are the questions that the CPS worker should clearly outline as they identify HOW the safety threats are occurring in the family.  The ongoing worker should not have to "tease" these out.  How the safety threat is occurring in the family is documented in the safety threat section and then summarized in the safety analysis sections as it relates to child vulnerability and whether a parent can and will protect.  The transfer of knowledge from the intake worker to the ongoing worker should not be dependent only upon the information in the 307, but should also be a discussion between the CPS worker and Ongoing worker (and ideally, both of their supervisors)  either before or during the child safety meeting. 

^ top of page

Answer: I don't know what a "back up" safety service provider is.  So, I need some help to better understand the question.  The non-offending parent cannot be the safety service provider if he or she is unable or unwilling to protect the child.  If we are using non-offending parents as safety service providers, we need to take a closer look at whether the child is truly safe or not. If we have a parent who is able and willing (on their own) to protect to the point that we believe the parent can be a safety service provider...then why is the department remaining involved and developing an ongoing safety plan? 

 

That said, it is frequently necessary to include in Safety Plans requirements for both offending and non-offending parents.  For instance, if part of the Safety Plan is that the offending parent must not have unsupervised contact with the child, the Safety Plan should detail how that will be ensured.  In that circumstance, the non-offending parent may serve as one of the safety service providers who will have a role in making sure there is no unsupervised contact (i.e., Mother will immediately contact the police if father comes to the family home.)  What is not appropriate is to rely entirely on “pinky promises” by parents to do or not do things without others to assist DHS in ensuring those things are/aren’t happening.  For instance, a parent promising to not drink, can be included in a Safety Plan, but that promise alone is certainly not sufficient to ensure child safety and the parent’s sobriety must be monitored by others who meet the requirements to be (and agree to be) safety service providers.

 

There may be specific case examples, that would help flush out a more precise, and case-specific response.  The consultants and coordinators are willing to come to unit meetings or to staff individual cases.

Answer: The protective action must be documented in the 307 no matter what it is, including placing the child in substitute care.  The protective action document (DHS 1534) is completely optional.  This document was created at the request of the field because workers wanted something to be able to give to a family immediately that spelled out the protective action. 

Answer: In the FACIS system on the case notes detail there is a category defined as “Safety Plan” Case notes can be filtered to show only Safety Plan related notes if that category is selected whenever safety plan information is entered.  This makes it easier for Supervisors to review what is being documented about safety plans in older cases. 

 

Current FACIS functionality does not allow for the pre-fill of the ongoing safety plan if one was not developed during the CPS assessment, which is problematic for older cases.  This will be resolved during the 2009 revision of the case plan document (333A).  In the meantime, the caseworker can complete the Ongoing Safety Plan (CF 1149) and attach to the case plan and report to the court.

 

^ top of page

Answer: Parents must be advised of the specific Conditions for Return during the Child Safety Meeting, when an out-of-home ongoing safety plan has been determined to be the least intrusive manner to manage child safety at the present time. The Conditions for Return are documented on the Safety Plan Form (1149), which is the form used to document the Child Safety Meeting and in the case plan (333A).

 

Documented Conditions for Return are not required during the CPS assessment when Protective Actions are taken. However, the same decision-making processes surrounding evaluation of the ability or lack of ability to have in in-home safety plan are in play, and it is important to modify the Protective Action, to include returning the children to a parent with a (sustainable) in-home ongoing safety plan when it is safely possible to do so.

 

Regarding the question about doing Conditions for Return earlier or later:

 

LATER: There is not a reason to do them later than the Child Safety Meeting. Some staff have been concerned that we need to know the parents' diminished capacities before we can know the Conditions for Return. This is not true. Conditions for Return are, at their most basic, the opposite of the reasons we have decided an in-home safety plan can't work and we have to take children into care to keep them safe from the identified safety threats. Conditions for Return are NOT based upon knowing and remedying the deficiencies in the parents' capacity to keep their children safe on their own - - that is what Expected Outcomes are all about. It cannot be stated too strongly: PARENTS NEED NOT BE CAPABLE OF SAFELY PARENTING THEIR CHILDREN ON THEIR OWN BEFORE THEIR CHILDREN CAN SAFETY RETURN TO THEIR CARE with an in-home ongoing safety plan. Instead, Conditions for Return should address the 3 factors outlined in the next paragraph.

 

If the decision is made and communicated during the Child Safety Meeting that it is not possible to have an in-home ongoing safety plan, we must articulate why, and explain what would need to be different about: (1) the parents' willingness/ability to support an in-home ongoing safety plan AND to work with DHS toward gaining the capacity(ies) necessary to eventually safely parent the child; (2) the safety and stability of the living environment so a safety plan can be possible; and (3) the availability of appropriate safety service providers necessary to ensure the safety of the children while the parents engage with us to ultimately increase their ability to do so on their own. When we do so, we are stating the "Conditions for Return."

 

EARLIER: Regarding doing them earlier: The first question parents ask when their children are taken into care is: "What do I have to do to get my kids back?" Prior to the implementation of the OSM, the response from the worker who was trying to be helpful and give the parent some direction, was almost always to give the parents a list of services they needed to complete, which, unfortunately, as often as not, was not an honest answer. Lots of parents did all of the services asked of them, and we were no closer to being able to manage child safety with an in-home safety plan than before they started jumping through the hoops they thought would get their kids home with them.

 

With the implementation of the OSM, the answer to that question may seem less tangible than a list of services, but in reality is much more honest and direct: "In order for your child to return to your home, it has to be possible for an in-home safety plan to be put into place and remain in place while we work together to resolve whatever issue(s) has led to the lack of safety of the child." The worker can then informally discuss right away with the parent the reasons it is currently not possible to manage child safety in the home. For instance, if the parent is blaming the child, is violent, or perhaps is flatly refusing to recognize a lack of child safety and/or work with DHS, as early as the moment the worker concludes it is not possible to have an in-home safety plan and must take a child into care, a worker can begin to discuss those specific barriers to an in-home safety plan with the parents. This is the beginning of the development of the formal Conditions for Return that MUST be discussed and documented as part of the Child Safety Meeting.

 

A final note for clarity:  Current rule does not specifically require conditions for return at the Child Safety Meeting, but it is the plan to get that into rule in the next rule revision, and it is a required element on the Safety Plan form (1149) which is developed at the Child Safety Meeting as well as being best practice.

 

^ top of page

Answer: Chapter 2, Appendix 2.5, Justifying a Parent/Caregiver Can and Will Protect, gives you excellent information on considerations in determining whether a parent is protective of his or her child. You can view this document by clicking on the following  link:
http://www.dhs.state.or.us/caf/safety_model/procedure_manual/appendices/ch2-app/2-5.pdf

Answer: Our responsibility is to determine the actions required to protect a child from an identified safety threat.  If, during the CPS assessment there is an identified safety threat, a vulnerable child and no parent willing or able to protect a child, the CPS worker must initiate a protective action to manage the vulnerable child’s safety. 

 

If, at the conclusion of the CPS assessment, it is determined that there is an identified safety threat, a vulnerable child, and no parent willing or able to protect the child, the CPS worker must develop an ongoing safety plan for the child who is vulnerable to the identified safety threat.

 

When the other child in the home, and after the CPS assessment and safety analysis are completed it is determined the child is not vulnerable to the identified safety threat and/or the other child has a parent who is willing and able to protect that child, an ongoing safety plan is not necessary for that particular child, because he or she is not unsafe.

 

When the safety plan for the unsafe child involves the separation of that child from his or her sibling, we are responsible for developing a visitation plan with siblings to maintain regular contact to develop and enhance their attachment to each other.

 

And, as we continue to work with this family, we continue to monitor the safety of all the children in the home during our contacts/visits with the family even when only one child was determined to be unsafe during the initial comprehensive assessment.

 

^ top of page

Answer: The intent of an early family meeting is for the family to have another opportunity prior to court to discuss the allegation, why they’re in court, to explore relative placement, to review the protective action and the children’s safety needs. This conversation does not have to happen in a meeting. In the Oregon Safety Model, this is good casework practice. To ensure children’s safety and good working relationships, caseworkers must have clear conversations with families throughout the life of a case, and prior to court.

Answer: In the OSM, the intent of the Child Safety Meeting is to re-evaluate the protective action and determine whether that is appropriate as an ongoing safety plan; to re-confirm all commitments with participants; and to discuss how the ongoing safety plan is the least intrusive means to effectively manage safety threats. Caseworkers are instructed to invite the child’s parents and any other family members who may contribute to the child’s safety, tribal participants (as appropriate), and any individuals or providers who may provide safety services. Although attorneys are not part of a safety plan for children, families may invite them and they are welcome to participate. This is also a time many branches use to transfer the case to the ongoing caseworker, and is a useful tool for a smooth transfer of responsibilities so the family and the caseworkers know who will be responsible for ongoing activities and services to the family.

 

^ top of page

Answer: During a comprehensive CPS assessment, families may be asked to participate in assessment services. This may include an A&D evaluation, mental health assessment, etc. We need to be careful about requiring a family to participate services until we have a good understanding of the family’s unique needs and strengths.  For child safety to be ensured, our interventions with families must be tailored to specifically address parents’ diminished capacities.

Answer: Jan Slick, Family Based Services Manager has advised that the Department should not open cases for FSAT services when we've determined the child is safe. Other treatment resources available for the child are Crime Victim Compensation & county mental health services, and the caseworker can refer the protective parent to those resources, as well as provide contact information to facilitate receiving services. In order for a child to access Crime Victim Compensation, there must have been a report of a crime.  A conviction is not necessary.  Crime Victim Compensation waivers the 72-hour report requirement and the 6-month application deadline when the victim is a child.  A report to DHS child welfare has been sufficient in the past in lieu of a LEA report.  Most child victims of sex abuse have been eligible.  

 

However, when it is determined during the safety analysis that a non-offending parent cannot or will not keep the child safe in a sustainable way without intervention, then the child is not safe.  In these cases, we open a case and may offer FSAT or other appropriate change services.  It is not enough to say the child is safe simply because it appears the non-offending parent is doing everything they should be doing right now if we don't have a level of confidence the non-offending parent will continue to be willing AND able to protect in a sustainable way.

 

^ top of page

Answer: Safety threat # 16 is specific to Oregon because of the Oregon statute related to threat of harm.  Absolutely, this safety threat can stand alone.  For example, if you have parent that has had four past terminations, hasn't done anything to eliminate the identified safety threats to those children and then has a new baby....she may not abuse new baby but the new baby is unsafe because of safety threat #16, no other reason.   She may not have actively demonstrated the behavior that resulted in the termination of parental rights over a period of time, and is still considered threat of harm because past behaviors were so serious that it causes the newborn to be at a threat of harm.  Common scenarios regarding this safety threat include, past termination of parental rights, aggravated circumstances, or a parent with other children currently out of the parents’ care. 

Answer: We agree, we shouldn’t be using words like ‘cognitive shift’ in a child safety meeting.  When we are talking with a family, we need to talk about our ability to see that the family is making changes and our ability to see their understanding of why changes are necessary to protect their child.  We need to explain that we want them to be able to keep their child safe over the long term without our interventions and services. We are intervening ONLY because their child is not safe at this time without intervention and services from the Department (and likely others).

 

^ top of page

Answer: The Safety Threats, with the description as to how they are manifesting within the particular family (the safety analysis) are indeed being used in a few courts as part of the petition language and it is certainly permissible to do so.  In fact, the comprehensive safety analysis required by the OSM much more clearly matches the jurisdictional requirements of stating how the circumstances, conditions, etc. of the child and/or parent are leading to an endangered child than did our old system of incident-based assessments.   Currently, however, the lack of understanding within the legal community of how the OSM language interrelates to the jurisdictional statutes, etc. makes many DAs, Juvenile Directors, etc. reticent to use the Safety Threat language in petitions.  This is one of the topics being addressed by the Legal Issues Workgroup.   We are hopeful a list of standard petition allegations based upon the Safety Threats and a template for petitions will be created for use across the state at some point in the future. 

Answer: The only question that does not apply to in-home safety plans is question number 4.  The remainder of the form must be completed for all safety plans whether in-home or out-of-home.  There is no plan to create a separate Safety Plan form for in-home cases.

Answer: We are preparing some example petitions, with personal information redacted, for branches to review.

 

^ top of page

Answer: The answer to this question looks fairly straight forward...."when the child has been determined to be safe." 

 

However, determining whether a child is safe or not, AND that child safety can be sustained, is a critical component of a comprehensive safety assessment. This is particularly important, when a parent is involved in substance abuse and needs treatment services as an intervention. 

 

Example:  Mom and baby test positive for  the abuse of some type of drug.  During the course of the CPS assessment, mom completes an alcohol and drug assessment, which results in the determination she needs residential treatment.  The CPS worker, or ART Team, assists mom getting into treatment with her child.  All of this is completed during the time period of the CPS assessment. 

 

There have been occasions when an ongoing safety plan is not created because the CPS worker has determined the child is "safe" based on the current circumstance (mom and baby are in a residential treatment program), which is a safe physical environment. 

 

In this example, an A&D treatment facility has determined the mother's clinical need for residential treatment.  A residential treatment placement is made when a client cannot control themselves, their actions, their environment, etc.  A parent needing that level of intervention, would most often be unable/unwilling to adequately protect the child independent of the intervention.  So unless the CPS worker and supervisor have made a determination that the child would continue to be safe even if the mother walked out of treatment at any time, an ongoing safety plan must be opened.    It is unlikely, if an A&D provider recommends residential treatment as the appropriate level of intervention for the presenting substance abuse issue (and the substance abuse was the factor impacting the child's safety),  that addiction is not also impacting her ability to safety parent and care for her child.  

 

A critical piece of the CPS assessment process is assessing the sustainability of the child's safety in determining a child is safe.    If DHS believes the child will be unsafe if a mother does not follow through with the recommended treatment, then DHS must intervene and an ongoing safety plan must be developed.  

Answer: The question above regarding Conditions for Return and Expected Outcomes in court orders might answer this question a bit, too.  As to receiving inconsistent information - - keep in mind we are all still in a learning curve on the implementation of the OSM and in particular, how it meshes with court processes.  The level of understanding both within DHS and for our AAGs and other partners is a work in progress.  The more informed we all become, the more child welfare practice becomes more consistent.

 

^ top of page

Answer: The General Counsel Human Services Section (GCHSS) and Family Law Section (FLS) of DOJ have been combined into the Child Advocacy Section (CAS).  The FLS attorneys have been the AAGs handling all cases regarding termination of parental rights.  A goal for CAS is for all of the attorneys to cover all types of our child welfare work (with rare exceptions).  That means for all subcare cases, the same attorney that conducted the Initial Legal Review at 5 months and Permanency Legal Review at 11 months, will be consulted during the staffing to determine whether to pursue termination of parental rights if applicable.  That same attorney would also represent the department for court proceedings such as the permanency hearing and the termination of parental rights trial for that case. 

 

Initial OSM training was provided to many of the GCHSS AAGs 1-2 years go.  Ongoing consultation with the AAG staff  is provided during regularly scheduled meetings.

 

There are two approved staffing guidelines for use at the legal assistance staffings where decisions are made about pursuing termination of parental rights.  One is a guideline that the AAG uses to ensure that he/she has covered all of the pertinent legal issues.  The companion guideline is for use by caseworkers and outlines what needs to be discussed during the staffing.  It is not required that the guideline be filled in but rather the worker and supervisor can use it in whatever manner will help the worker prepare for the staffing. 

 

The staffing guidelines were amended in 2007. The language was changed to reflect safety model language.  The rest of the language had to remain as written in order to match the statutory language for termination of parental rights.  The concepts in the OSM and the termination of parental rights statutes are consistent with one another and support each other well, however the terminology differs.  The Legal Assistance Specialists (LASes) are incorporating OSM language, concepts, and case work into the Legal Assistance staffing discussions and adoption training whenever possible.  They will continue their work to inform staff of the similarities in concepts between the OSM and ORS but the differences in terminology.    There was also discussion between the Adoption Program in Central Office and the OSM trainers about ways to approach the language discrepancies between OSM and ORS and case law regarding termination of parental rights.  There can be further discussion on this topic if needed.     

 

There are also staffings for cases that still have “pre OSM” work and documents (i.e. 147s, service agreements) and so the guidelines and staffing discussions have to be inclusive of case work that occurred throughout the life of the case. 

 

The same issues listed for the staffing guidelines apply to the Legal Assistance Referral (document that provides case information, witness information, etc. to the AAG to prepare for TPR).  The LAR, unlike the staffing guidelines, has not been updated since OSM implementation.  The ultimate goal is to eliminate the LAR in its current form and to have progressive staffing forms/notes which could also build into a partial or full replacement of the LAR.  Substituting OSM language in the progressive staffing forms and “LAR” wherever possible will be done during those revisions.    

 

Please note that the department has a contract with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office to represent that district for termination of parental rights cases.  The same staffing guidelines, LAR format, and training issues described above still apply with that district and the DDAs representing them. 

^ top of page