5.3.1.1  Role of the Chief Investigator in Family Assessments

Missouri law identifies the role and responsibility of a Chief Investigator in § 210.145 RSMo.  Each local office must develop procedures and maintain a log to ensure the tasks listed below are completed by the Chief Investigator, or their substitute, within seventy-two (72) hours of any Child Abuse/Neglect (CA/N) Investigation, Family Assessment or Newborn Crisis Referral.  The mandatory review and seventy-two (72) hour time limit is applicable to all reported concerns, regardless to the date and time of their receipt.  Substitute personnel might include the circuit manager, social work specialist, or other experienced supervisor.  Some portions of the Chief Investigator review may be conducted over the telephone in cases of emergency situations. When these situations occur, staff should document the date and time of the consultation in the case narrative in FACES.  The Chief Investigator's approval of the safety assessment and/or safety plan should also reflect the date on which they provided initial oversight.

The following are steps which must be completed by the Chief Investigator or their substitute within seventy-two (72) hours:

• Verify the report was appropriately screened as an investigation or family assessment;
• Verify the reporter was contacted, or attempts have been made to initiate contact with the reporter, if their identity is known to the Division;
• Verify that all children in the household have been seen within appropriate timeframes, not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours of the report, unless sufficient documentation indicates the reason(s) for a delay in initial contacts;
• Verify that all family history with the Division has been considered as it relates to the hotline report and/or the overall assessment of the family;
• Verify and review the case record documentation of all contacts made to the point in the case at which the Chief Investigative review takes place;
• Verify that all reported concerns have been explored and addressed as needed;
• Verifying that any additional safety concerns presented (in addition to reported allegations) have been explored and addressed as needed;
• Support Children Service Workers as they establish and maintain relations with multidisciplinary team members;
• When the report involves a child enrolled in school, ensure information regarding the status of reports is provided to the public school district liaison.  Should the subject child attend a non-public school, the principal of that school should be notified of the report; and
• If in agreement with the safety assessment and the safety plan (if required), the Chief Investigator, or their substitute, should approve and date the physical copy of the CD-17, and any CD-18 safety plan required, and enter approval in FACES.

Local protocols must be developed to ensure supervisory coverage and accessibility to Children’s Service Workers to provide 72 hour Chief Investigator consultations and for any safety concerns which may develop during the completion of a Family Assessment.  The Chief Investigator is expected to communicate with the worker to discuss the case whenever possible or necessary, and provide guidance to the Children’s Service Worker with regard to the completion of the reported concern.

5.3.1.2 Review the Initial CA/N Report for:

• Reported allegations or other concerns contained in the report;
• Number of household members, if indicated;
• Age and relationship of household members, if indicated;
• Age and number of children involved in the report of maltreatment;
• Location of household;
• Prior reports/referrals to Children’s Division (CD);
• Income resources indicated;
• Indication of community involvement, i.e., reporter is from a school counselor, medical staff, etc.; and
• Indication of history or current conditions that might pose a danger to the worker. (report or history of weapons, dangerous dogs, drugs or meth production at the residence)

In reviewing the above categories, staff are to begin planning their first contact with the child(ren) and family and reviewing what strengths and stresses may be indicated for the family.

5.3.1.3  Reviewing Prior History

Examining this history provides the worker with a base of information for their contact with the family.  Additionally, the history tells the Children’s Service Worker what worked for the family if past services were provided, as well as what did not seem to work.

In reviewing prior history the worker should consider the following questions:

• Have there been prior reports or referrals to the agency?  (Investigations; family assessments; newborn crisis assessments…etc.)
• What was the nature and context of those reports?
• Is there a reoccurring or chronic pattern of abuse/neglect indicated in the history?
• Who was involved in prior reports?
• What were the outcomes or findings of those reports?
• What was the Division’s response? (Children were removed; the report found “probable cause” or “preponderance of evidence”; Family-Centered Services or Intensive In-Home Services were provided…etc.)
• What was the outcome of services provided? (Linked to community resources; family; short term services; rights were terminated…etc.)

If it becomes known during an Investigation/Family Assessment that there is a history or alleged incident of domestic violence, staff should contact Law Enforcement and/or any other professionals known to be familiar with the domestic violence in order to obtain complete information on the family.

The implications of a family’s history in CPS practice should be utilized in a manner consistent with the “rolling icebergs” theory by Tony Loman, of the Institute of Applied Research. Incident reports should be seen in the context of other problems that manifest themselves within a family in different ways at different points in time. One specific incident may only be the “tip of the iceberg”, while other (sometimes more serious) things might be hidden below the surface. Repeated reports on families, then, may best be understood as rolling icebergs, with different aspects revealing themselves and being observed across time. Understanding how to recognize and utilize prior history in this manner will provide a solid foundation for intervention by the Children’s Service Worker.

Supervisors must assure that staff has made every effort to search for prior CD involvement, and that the information is given appropriate consideration.

Accumulation of Harm

An accumulation of harm can have a long-term impact on a child’s overall physical, mental or emotional development. Research has shown that the quality of nutrition and nurturing during the first five years of a child’s life is particularly important for normal growth and development later in the child’s life. Needed care and attention that is missed in these early years is difficult to make up for in later years. An example of this is a family with a preschool child who is repeatedly not provided adequate stimulation and nutrition and who becomes developmentally delayed. Because the child is already at a disadvantage developmentally, the ability to do well in school and reach other developmental milestones becomes further and further out of the child’s reach. This kind of pattern of neglect, resulting in accumulated harm, can result in long-term, negative consequences for the child.

The concept of accumulation of harm is important in identifying and developing treatment strategies with families who are experiencing chronic neglect, as well as any other pattern of abuse/neglect. When assessing the immediate safety and future risk of a child’s condition, Division staff must be aware of the heightened risk to children when caretakers show a repeated pattern of failing to meet the child’s physical, medical, educational and emotional needs.

5.3.1.4  Involving the Non-Custodial Parent

It is important for Division staff to consider and document the role of all non-resident parents when conducting Child Abuse/Neglect (CA/N) Investigations or Family Assessments.  This information may be captured in the CA/N narrative and/or the strengths/needs assessment.  Staff are encouraged to inquire about the role of the non-resident parent with more than one family member, and at least one of them should be the non-resident parent’s child if deemed age appropriate by staff.  Staff should also make good faith efforts to understand and document the involvement of the non-resident parent in the life of his/her child.  This information can be obtained from interviews conducted with household members, multidisciplinary team members and collateral contacts.  When possible, staff are encouraged to speak with the non-resident parent to discuss their knowledge and involvement with the family.

Division staff can talk to whomever he/she needs to in order to do a thorough assessment of safety, risk, or to evaluate the family's strengths and needs, which may include a non-resident parent.  If the non-resident parent is the alleged perpetrator, then in order to have an objective completion of the CA/N Investigation or Family Assessment, attempts must be made to talk to that person.  Staff should use administrative data resources in order to locate the non-resident parent if that information is not made available through other sources.

Good faith efforts should be made to provide the non-resident parent with a disposition notice at the conclusion of any Child Abuse/Neglect Investigation or Family Assessment involving his/her child.  Should the non-resident parent present a request for additional information, staff should only disclose information which pertains to his/her child.  In the event that staff are informed by household members, multidisciplinary team members or collateral contacts that information shared with the non-resident parent may place a child or their family at imminent risk of harm, staff should seek supervisory consultation prior to contacting or corresponding with the non-resident parent.