Last month Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) Commissioner Lucinda Jesson stated that DHS would soon be providing practice guidance on child protection screening, track assignment, and other practice issues based on initial recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children. On Thursday, Feb. 5, this guidance was issued in the form of a bulletin (#15-68-01).

This bulletin, Child Safety Practice Guidance Issued, is meant to be an interim practice guide until the final Task Force recommendations are issued at the end of March 2015.

What is included in the bulletin?

Rephrasing of “past history” in screening decisions

Because the law still currently prohibits the use of screened out reports for anything other than making social services referrals, this bulletin does not expressly allow the use of screened out reports in making screening decisions. Rather, it rewords a paragraph in the Minnesota Child Maltreatment Screening Guidelines (2012) to allow and encourage screeners to consider a family’s previous involvement in child protection and child welfare in making screening decisions. “Previous involvement” includes any past Family Assessments (FA), Family Investigations (FI), and services provided through child protection and/or child welfare.

The screening guidelines had already stated that past history could be considered when determining whether protective services are needed; this allows past history to also be considered earlier in the process, at the screening decision.

Reminding agencies that sexual abuse is “substantial child endangerment”

One of the concerns brought up at a December Task Force meeting was the number of reports alleging child sexual abuse that were assigned to FA, despite the fact that child sexual abuse falls under “substantial child endangerment” and thus requires a FI response (see M.S. 626.556, Subd. 1 for statement on substantial child abuse requiring a FI response, and M.S. 626.556, Subd. 2 (c)(2) and (d) for definitions of substantial child endangerment and sexual abuse).

This bulletin plainly states that “Family Investigation is required for reports involving substantial child endangerment. Child sexual abuse allegations fall under the definition of substantial child endangerment…and must receive a Family Investigation.”

The bulletin does indicate that switching tracks from FI to FA is allowed, even in cases alleging child sexual abuse, but only if the agency decides a complete investigation is not required and that the agency documents the reason for the switch and the agency notifies law enforcement (if there is a joint investigation). The bulletin does state that switching tracks is only to be used when “the initial allegation of child maltreatment is not consistent with initial conditions in the child protective services response.”

What is mandatory for families and what is not

Another area of concern among Task Force members has been what is voluntary and what is involuntary for child protection-involved families. The bulletin states very clearly that both child protection responses—FA and FI—are not voluntary, and that families must comply with the responses. Should a family not cooperate, or a child is unsafe or risk of future harm is high, then the recommendation is to consult with the county attorney’s office about possible court action. The bulletin also explicitly states that risk assessments must be done in both FA and FI, that county attorney consultations must occur prior to closing cases involving high risk families, and that court action can occur in both FA and FI.

Other practice recommendations

Other practice recommendations from the bulletin include:

  • Utilize supervision and/or team decision-making for making track assignment decisions
  • Consult with the county attorney’s office if there is ambiguity regarding whether to screen in a report
  • Assign reports alleging child maltreatment that involve a licensed child care or foster care provider to FI
  • Screen in duplicate reports as duplicate reports, but if new allegations arise for cases that are already open for assessment or investigation, it must be considered a new report
  • Interview children “in the method most likely to achieve a full understanding of a child’s safety status” and to find out the facts

As stated previously, this bulletin is meant to serve as interim practice guidelines until legislative action takes place. While March 31, 2015, is the Task Force’s deadline for submitting its final recommendations, March 20, 2015, is the first committee deadline at the legislature, meaning that “committees must act favorably on bills in the house of origin.”