CA/N ASSESSMENT

* NOTE: All text in RED is my experience within this case and concerning the above listed
procedure topic.

II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

E. Notification Of CA/N Allegations - Page 1

 Timeframe
Child welfare staff shall provide notification of CA/N allegations within five (5) working days of
the report’s receipt. The notification may be mailed (if written) or provided personally (i.e., orally
or by hand delivering the letter) during the initial contact with the following individuals
* Allegations were stated to have been made on 01/18/2024. I was not notified until
03/11/2024, which is the same day I was forced by threats of foster care into signing a blank
Safety Plan without any real investigation. I was never given the opportunity to a hearing to
dispute the Central Registry “INDICATED” findings since I did not receive the letter until
04/03/2024, 13 working days from the letters date of 03/14/2024 bypassing the 10-working
day allotment.

III. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROTOCOL

A. Supportive Interaction with Individuals Pertinent To The CA/N Assessment – Page 6

 Child welfare staff shall apply a family-centered approach when conducting CA/N
assessments. This approach seeks to support and involve children, parents, primary
caregivers, and other individuals in all aspects of CPS intervention. Child welfare staff
shall make every effort to constructively engage children, parents, and other persons
involved with and knowledgeable of the circumstances surrounding the intake
information.
* The only people ever spoken to were my at the time 14-year-old daughter (the reporter) and
my mother who she was living with at the time and who is also the one who had
manipulated her into making the report after being upset with me over financial reasons. I
was the last to be notified and no other parties were spoken to for example my two youngest
children, any teachers, or other grandparents. After DHR involvement my mother’s
aggression moved from not only myself but also my 14-year-old daughter who finally had to
move to my ex-mother-in-law’s home to escape my mothers phycological abuse.

B. Preparation – Page 6
 Consistent with a family-centered approach, it is important to begin information
collection, whenever possible, with parents or primary caregivers. Therefore,
interview parents or primary caregivers first unless there are indications that child
safety or the integrity of the CA/N assessment could be jeopardized.
* As previously stated, I was the last to be notified or spoken with and there was never any
indications or fear of child safety, which the reporter in the case has already stated. Nor that
the integrity of the CA/N assessment could be jeopardized.

F. Required Interviews and Information

1. CA/N Assessment Interviews – Page 8
Child welfare staff shall conduct interviews with all parents and primary
 caregivers, children and other adults residing in the home, persons allegedly responsible
for abuse/neglect, and collaterals. Workers shall make a home visit every 30 days until
the CA/N is completed.
* Report stated to be made 01/18/2024, first contact from DHR and removal of children
03/11/2024, first contact from assigned caseworker received by text and responded to on
07/18/2024 but received no further communication from. I reached out to newly assigned
caseworker 09/18/2024, who’s information I got from family, as I had still not been
contacted by her requesting initial interview at my home which took place 09/23/2024. All
the while DHR was telling my family the children were placed with that I was avoiding them
and refusing to return contact attempts, which was completely untrue and in attempt to
make me look bad and them look like they were doing the job they were actually not doing.
No one has been back to my home since the initial and only visit on 09/23/2024.

b. Children In The Home – Page 9

Individual, in-person, private interviews shall be conducted with all
children in the home identified as allegedly abused or neglected within the
response time designated at intake. “In – Person contact with all other
children residing in the home, not identified at risk of being
abused/neglected shall be made as soon as the intake and initial child
contact warrants, but no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date
the report was received.
* Report stated to be made on 01/18/2024 and to my knowledge no one has made any real
attempt to interview my two youngest children Sadie 9 years old and Tucker 8 years old
besides the current caseworker asking them if I was nice which would have had to be after
07/18/2024 when I was contacted by the first assigned caseworker. My oldest daughter
Imogen 15 years old (the reporter) has been interviewed multiple times and made DHR
aware that she never felt a concern for her or her brother and sister’s safety.

2. CA/N Assessment Information

a. Alleged Abuse/Neglect
• Specific description of the abuse/neglect – type injury or threats that occurred and to whom
• Severity of the abuse/neglect – frequency, chronicity, and effects (e.g., physical, emotional,
behavioral)
• Detailed description of the incident(s)– when (i.e., date, time),
where (i.e., location), how it occurred, and whether any instruments (animate or inanimate were
used to threaten the child or inflict the injury; who was present; who was
responsible for the abuse/neglect, and whether or not that person has continued access to the
children identified Alleged Abuse/Neglect
• Specific description of the abuse/neglect – type injury or threats that occurred and to whom
• Severity of the abuse/neglect – frequency, chronicity, and effects (e.g., physical, emotional,
behavioral)
• Detailed description of the incident(s)– when (i.e., date, time) where (i.e., location), how it
occurred, and whether any instruments (animate or inanimate) were used to threaten the
child or inflict the injury; who was present; who was responsible for the abuse/neglect, and
whether or not that person has continued access to the children identified as abused/neglected
or access to any other children
• Parents’/primary caregivers’ explanation of what happened including how the child’s injuries
occurred
 • History and duration of the alleged abuse/neglect – how long the current situation has existed
and whether there have been any prior incidents
• Contributing factors and conditions (e.g., substance use; mental disability; domestic violence)

IV. CA/N ASSESSMENT FINDINGS – Page 12-15

Child welfare staff shall analyze information collected through interviews, observations,
and written materials in order to determine which children and families are in need of ongoing
services. This analysis and decision-making process involves:
• determining if the children are at risk of serious harm; and
• reaching a disposition for each CA/N allegation and each person allegedly
responsible for abuse/neglect

A. CA/N Dispositions
“Indicated” and “not indicated” are based on whether “a preponderance of the credible
evidence” (e.g., eye witness accounts, worker observations, medical
reports, professional evaluations) obtained during the CA/N assessment would lead a child
welfare professional to conclude that abuse/neglect did or did not
occur

1 Indicated
A C/AN allegation is considered “indicated” when a preponderance of the credible evidence
substantiates that
• with respect to a specific child and allegation, the child was abused/neglected per CA/N
Allegations And Definitions; and
• with respect to each person allegedly responsible for abuse/neglect, the person was
determined to be responsible for the abuse/neglect

B. Threat Of Serious Harm

On-going child protective services may be provided while children are living in
their own home or in a non-foster care out-of-home setting. Children shall be
removed from their own home only when it is not possible to protect them from
imminent serious harm through the provision of services, including the provision
of intensive in-home services.

C. No Threat Of Serious Harm

1. provide child protective services as a preventive measure on a voluntary basis according
to CPS Prevention policy when (a) the family is willing to participate in service planning and
delivery and (b) the county DHR has sufficient staff and resources to provide these services.

Note: Families have the right to refuse services unless their children’s
immediate or impending safety needs would be compromised
See CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT (CA/N) ALLEGATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
 SAFETY ASSESSMENT
I. PURPOSE - A. Determining Safety of Children- Page 1-6
In assessing child safety, there is a continuum of risk of maltreatment and a
certain point at which the threats become so great, the family situation is unsafe for
the child. This point in a family situation is defined as the safety threshold. In order
for a present or impending threat to meet the safety threshold, causing a child to be
unsafe, each of the following items must exist.

• Severity – The threat is consistent with harm that can result in significant pain,
serious injury, disablement, grave or debilitating physical health or physical
conditions, acute or grievous suffering, terror, impairment, or death.
• Vulnerability – Child’s dependence upon others for protection is based on an
assessment of a child’s age, as well as his or her physical and mental health.
• Out-of-Control - Family conditions are such that nothing within the family can
manage the behavior, emotion, or situation causing the safety threat.
• Specific Time Frame – A belief that threats to child safety are present or likely to
become active soon; a certainty about occurrence within the immediate to near
future that could have severe effects on a child.
• Observable and Specific – Facts obtained indicate that the danger to the child is
real.

A. Developing Safety Plans

Safety plans are based on identifiable safety threat(s) and diminished
parental/primary caregiver protective capacities, which place the child at present
or impending danger. Safety plans shall only be used when present or
impending danger threats are identified and documented.

2. Out-of-Home (Non-Foster Care)

a. Involving the Court in Out-of-Home (Non-Foster Care) Safety
Plans
The maximum timeframe that an Out-of-Home (Non-Foster
Care) safety plan can be in place without court involvement is
forty-five days. Court involvement is considered to have occurred
when the county department either files a dependency petition or
initiates contact with legal counsel which results in the filing of a
petition. Court involvement does not preclude the Department from
establishing reunification as a goal and working toward this goal.

II. CONTENT AND DOCUMENTATION OF SAFETY PLANS – Page 12-17

 A. Content of Safety Plan Document
Safety plans shall identify the actions to be taken to manage safety threats. The plan
must be written so that everyone involved understands and agrees to the plan. Safety
plans, when completed in the field, shall be documented on the Safety Plan, DHRFCS-2110,
(see Forms section) with follow-up documentation in FACTS.

The following, at a minimum, shall be specifically addressed in the safety plan.

• steps to be taken to protect the children from safety threats;
• steps for monitoring the plan’s implementation including timeframes for child welfare staff
visits to the home to assess the children’s ongoing protection needs; and
• individuals responsible for taking identified steps.

B. Impending Danger Threats

 Parent’s/primary caregiver’s physical or mental disability or incapacitation renders
the person unable to provide basic care for the children.
• A substance abuse problem renders parent/primary caregivers incapable of
routinely/consistently attending to children’ basic needs.

VIOLATION SUMMARY

 Delayed Notification: Defendant was informed of allegations nearly two months

after they were made, and only when pressured into signing a Safety Plan.

 Limited Investigation: The only individuals interviewed were your 15-year-old

daughter (who made the report) and your mother. Other relevant parties, including
your younger children and teachers, were not consulted.

 Misrepresentation by DHR: The Department of Human Resources (DHR) allegedly

misrepresented the Defendants actions, claiming she were avoiding contact when
you were actively trying to reach them.

 Lack of Due Process: Defendant was not given the chance to present her side before
her children were removed, and the social worker who reported her admitted to
exaggerating claims to expedite DHR involvement.

 Violation of Safety Plan Rules: A. Defendant was coerced into signing safety plans the
threat of foster care.

B. Defendants have separated from her for over a year, exceeding the 45-day maximum
timeframe for non-foster care safety plans.

C. Also the children being given to the one person the defendant specifically said for them
not to go to for over a week.

 Psychological: Defendant argues that the removal has caused more harm to her
children than the original allegations, and she was denied the option to voluntarily
accept services without family separation.