 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A. ASSIGNING CASES TO THE INVESTIGATIVE ASSESSMENT RESPONSE
B. INTERVIEWING THE CHILD IN AN INVESTIGATIVE ASSESSMENT
C. INTERVIEW WITH ALLEGED PERPETRATOR
D. CONTACTS OUTSIDE THE FAMILY (COLLATERALS)
The county DSS may assign any valid CPS report (abuse, neglect, or dependency to the Investigative Assessment response if deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the child.
All reports alleging any type of abuse, abandonment, and any “special type of report” must be assigned as Investigative Assessments.
All reports (regardless of the allegations) involving allegations concerning a child in the custody of a local DSS, family foster home, residential facility, or child care situation must be assigned to the Investigative Assessment response.
Effective interviewing strategies and techniques shall be used which are appropriate to the child's developmental level. Documentation shall explain the inability to interview the child.
If a child has the capacity for speech, the child must be interviewed, preferably in private and, under no circumstances, in the presence of the person or persons alleged to have caused or allowed abuse or neglect. Efforts should be made to establish rapport with the child and to help the child feel comfortable in disclosing information about himself/herself and family. The interviewing sequence in an Investigative Assessment that is generally considered to be the least likely to present further harm to the child is:
• all children living in the home,
• the non-perpetrating parent,
• the perpetrator, and then
• collaterals.
There are times when this order may not be feasible or the most appropriate. It is important to consider the individuals and allegations involved in each situation and to conduct the interviews in the order that seems least likely to increase the risk of harm to the alleged victim child or other children in the home. For cases involving Domestic Violence, see Chapter VIII; Section 1409 - Domestic Violence for guidance on the sequence for interviewing family members.
A face-to-face interview with the alleged perpetrator shall be conducted during the course of the Investigative Assessment, or there shall be documentation to reflect diligent efforts made. Sometimes the person alleged to have abused or neglected the child does not reside in the home with the child (e.g., childcare teacher, non-custodial parent with whom the child visits). It is important to interview this person to gain their perspective on what has been alleged and to assess any safety issues if the person is to have access to the child.
Sometimes during the course of an Investigative Assessment, information received reveals that the perpetrator is not a parent or caretaker. It is still important to interview the alleged perpetrator during the course of the Investigative Assessment, if possible. The alleged perpetrator may have information that is vital in helping to determine if the allegation is true. If other evidence indicates the harm was caused or allowed by the parent or caretaker, an interview with the alleged perpetrator may give insight into whether or not the parents/caretaker provided adequate care and supervision.
While the child and other family members are the primary sources of information in abuse, neglect, and dependency assessments, other agencies or individuals may have additional information or may be able to validate information received from the family or the reporter.
Note: Refer to “CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) ASSESSMENT OF SUSPECTED ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND DEPENDENCY” for discussion of all aspects of a collateral contact policy common to both the Family Assessment approach and the Investigative Assessment approach.
Collaterals that shall be considered in the information gathering process include: extended family members, friends, neighbors, employers and co-workers, and community agencies (medical facilities, law enforcement, juvenile courts, schools, health departments, etc.). Information gathered during the Investigative Assessment process may identify additional collateral contacts. These collateral contacts often provide accurate information regarding the maltreatment of the child. Parents/Caretakers should also be provided the opportunities to name possible collateral contacts. The selection of collateral sources shall be made with discretion in order to protect the family's right to privacy and the confidentiality of the report. When obtaining information from collateral contacts, a rule of thumb is to use a "need to know" basis. Sometimes one must give pieces of information in order for a collateral contact to understand what is being asked. However, the family's right to privacy should be protected. Only those collaterals believed to have information related to the alleged conditions shall be contacted.
Coordination between law enforcement agencies and child protective services for the Investigative Assessment response achieves joint efforts in interviewing and ensuring safety of families and children; ensures an effective working relationship; holds perpetrators accountable for harming children; reduces the number of interviews children experience; prevents or reduces the repeat traumatization of children; and, enhances the evidence process for criminal prosecution.
Current state law requires that evidence of abuse be reported to law enforcement and the district attorney. The Investigative Assessment response requires a close working relationship with law enforcement. Memoranda of Agreement need to be developed with the local law enforcement agencies to ensure an effective working relationship. The goals are to hold perpetrators accountable for harming children, to reduce the number of interviews for children, and to enhance the evidence gathering process for law enforcement.
As it is appropriate, agencies should include their child advocacy centers in these Memoranda of Agreement. Doing so ensures that each stakeholder agency communicates and collaborates with the others in as efficient manner as possible and supports the identification and provision of needed services to children and their families. Such communication and collaboration also strengthens the county criminal system’s capacity to achieve timely arrests and prosecutions of those who intentionally harm children.
1. Making the Case Decision
The Investigative Assessment case decision shall:
• be a shared decision, including at a minimum, the social worker and the social worker's supervisor or supervisor's designee or staffing team;
• be correct based on the legal definitions;
• document specific caretaker behavior that resulted in harm to the child or clarify the absence of risk of harm; and
• be made within 30 days, or there shall be documentation to reflect the rationale to extend the Investigative Assessment beyond 30 days.
The case decision making process involves, at a minimum, the social worker and supervisor or supervisor's designee or staffing team. A broader team approach to decision-making has several advantages. It allows for various viewpoints and discussion which could be a valuable learning tool for newer staff. It may lead to greater consistency in decision-making. It allows for shared liability and responsibility. Making a decision to Substantiate or not can have far-reaching implications for children and families, and it is not a decision that can be taken lightly. Sharing the liability and responsibility may reduce the stress level for staff and enhance the process.
The names of those individuals participating in making the case decision should be documented as well as the basis for the case decision.
The statutory requirement and professional obligation to conduct prompt Investigative Assessments of child abuse, neglect, and dependency underscore the need to expedite the Investigative Assessment process. Extensive delay in making a case decision can be seen as an unwarranted intrusion in a family and sometimes increases risk for children. In many instances, agency assessments can be completed and a case decision made within 30 days of receipt of the report. When case circumstances delay the prompt completion of an Investigative Assessment, the case record needs to document the reasons for the delay.
2. Findings in Investigative Assessment
The county director shall conduct a thorough Investigative Assessment to assess:
• whether the specific environment in which the child is found meets the child's need for care and protection; and
• the facts regarding the existence of abuse, neglect or dependency; and
• the risk of harm to and the need for protection of the child (10A NCAC 70A .0106).
It is important that the social worker be able to describe and document the components listed above in order to make a case decision.
The findings in an Investigative Assessment will be either Substantiated or Unsubstantiated.
Determining whether a child is abused, neglected, or dependent requires careful assessment of all the information obtained during the Investigative Assessment process. In making a case decision it is important to assess not only that maltreatment has occurred, but what are the current safety issues, and is there future risk of harm and the need for protection. The following questions should provide the structure for making a case decision:
• Has the maltreatment occurred with frequency and/or is the maltreatment severe?
This question applies to the history of the family, any and all maltreatment within the family should be considered when answering this question.
• Are there current safety issues? Would the child be unsafe in the home where the abuse, neglect or dependency occurred?
This question applies to the situation at the time of the case decision.
• Is the child at risk of future harm?
• Is the child in need of protection?
This question applies to the situation at the time of the case decision. Services already begun and safety measures taken during the assessment should be considered when answering this question.
To make a case decision to Substantiate, the answer to one or more of the above questions must be “yes”, and there must be documentation to support the answers included on the case decision tool. Only in unusual circumstances should a supervisor and staffing team change the indicated structured case decision. In those cases, the supervisor should complete the “Rationale for Case Decision/Disposition” to justify the change.
Note: In determining severity of maltreatment, consideration should be given to the degree of harm, level of severity, extent of injury, egregiousness, gravity and the seriousness of maltreatment.
In determining current safety, consider safety issues that exist at the time of making the case decision.
If the decision of the North Carolina Safety Assessment is “Safe”, and the findings of the North Carolina Family Risk Assessment of Abuse/Neglect and the North Carolina Family Assessment of Strengths and Needs are both “Low”, then the case would not be substantiated unless there are unusual circumstances.
Note: In cases where poverty is the sole factor of the maltreatment and services were offered and accepted by the parent/caretaker, the case decision should be Unsubstantiated, unless there are unusual circumstances. In cases when poverty is the sole factor of the maltreatment, and there is an on-going history/pattern of services being offered and declined and the pattern of maltreatment continues, it would be appropriate to Substantiate if the answers to the above four questions are “yes,” unless there are unusual circumstances.
Determining whether a child is abused, neglected, or dependent requires careful evaluation of all information obtained during the Investigative Assessment process and the use of professional judgment. The agency’s Investigative Assessment process must focus on fact-finding. While initially the focus is on the allegations contained in the report, additional concerns related to the child or other children may be known to the agency or revealed during the course of the CPS Assessment. The case decision must, therefore, reflect assessment of all evidence and facts available.
If the case decision is to Unsubstantiate, a determination should be made as to what agency services or outside resources, if any, would be helpful. These services can be offered and referrals suggested, but the family may refuse.
Note: Cases Involving Domestic Violence (See Chapter VIII; Section 1409 - Domestic Violence)
When a case decision is made to Substantiate due to domestic violence, it is not appropriate to Substantiate on the abused parent (adult victim) in the home unless they have subjected their child to abuse or neglect. Understanding the dynamics of domestic violence is very complicated and brings in a different dimension.
Is the abused parent (adult victim) unable to attend to the needs of the children due to fear or retaliation upon themselves and/or the children should they make efforts to provide for those needs? Has the violent partner disabled their ability to parent?
Making a finding to Substantiate against the abused parent (adult victim) for neglect-failure to protect should be made only if the abused parent (adult victim) subjected their child to abuse or neglect.
1. Family Contact after Substantiation
A family shall be seen by a social worker within one week after Substantiation of abuse, neglect, or dependency to begin the transition from the Investigative Assessment phase to CPS In-Home Services, unless there is documentation of diligent efforts made and/or rationale for the delay.
If, for any reason, the agency decides to close a case after Substantiation in an Investigative Assessment without providing CPS In-Home Services, the reason and rationale for this decision and assessment of the child’s safety should be clearly documented in the case record. In most cases, the family will receive child protective services until the parents/caretakers have demonstrated their ability to provide care which is at least sufficient to meet the child's needs for care, safety and supervision.
2. Expunction Process and Findings (See also Chapter VIII; Section 1427 - Expunction)
A tri-level expunction process has been established by N.C.G.S. § 7B-321 and Administrative Rule 10A NCAC 70A .0114. An individual may request expunction from the Responsible Individuals List (RIL) by first requesting the Director of Social Services of the county that made the case decision to review the decision that placed their name on the RIL. A request may also be made to the District Attorney for the prosecutorial district in which the abuse or neglect report arose, or an individual may file a petition in District Court for expunction.
When a report of neglect is being completed as an Investigative Assessment, there are two levels to the case finding. The first decision is to determine if the case is to be Substantiated. The second is to determine if the neglect is “serious.” A definition for “Serious Neglect” as well as other information regarding the Expunction Process can be found in Chapter VIII; Section 1427 - Expunction.
Notifications for Responsible Individuals List (Investigative Assessment Only)
The social worker shall make face-to-face contact with the responsible individual within 5 working days of the case decision to explain the reason for the decision, and to provide personal, written notice of the case decision. It is permissible for the delivery of the case decision notice to be by a social worker other than the social worker who conducted the Investigative Assessment.
If it is not possible to make face-to-face contact with the responsible individual to deliver the written notice within those 5 working days, the social worker shall make diligent efforts to contact the responsible individual. However, should the social worker be unsuccessful in contacting the responsible individual, no later than 15 calendar days from the date of the case decision, the notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, so that the responsible individual is the only person who may receive the notice.
The Investigative Assessment notice shall contain the following:
• A thorough, detailed, summarizing statement informing the individual of the
• substantial evidence to support the decision to Substantiate and whether the director determined abuse or “Serious Neglect” or both.
• A statement informing the individual that in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 7B-320 (c) (3) and Administrative Rule 10A NCAC 70A .0107, his or her name will be placed on the Responsible Individuals List and provided upon request to child caring institutions, child placing agencies, group home facilities, and county Departments of Social Services for the purposes of current or prospective employment, as well as the Guardian Ad Litem Program, and other providers of foster care, child care or adoption services for the purpose of determining the fitness of individuals to care for or adopt children.
• Detailed instructions on how to request a review and expunction from the Responsible Individuals List.
Note: Please see this sample notice (Attachment 3: Personal Written Notice to the RI). When completing the notice of the case decision to the responsible individual, the social worker is to fill in the date for the deadline of each step of the expunction process
|
For questions or clarification on any of the policy contained in these manuals, please contact your local county office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|