BRS Conversation Paper

Living with her mother; however her mother asked her to leave the premises. Case Manager asked client, why her mother asked her to leave. Client stated that they got into an argument. Client stated that they have been arguing on a daily basis. Client stated that she doesn’t want to raise her child in that environment. Client stated that she has being living with her mother all her life.

The Child Permanency Plan court orders that parents participate in their require services 15 of the most recent 22 months unless there is an exception (decided on by the court). If not children when possible are placed with suitable family members and/or adoptive parents for safety and permanency.

Social Services Meeting: On 03/01/2017, Ms. Hawkins and her daughter Emoni met with her assigned Case Manager for the family ILP Document Review. Ms. Hawkins’ next ILP Document Review appointment is on 03/14/2017. Ms. Hawkins is in-compliance with the terms of her ILP. Ms. Hawkins was reminded that she is expected to attend all scheduled meetings with assigned Case Manager and failed to do it would considered non-compliance and warning will be issued. Ms. Hawkins stated that she is aware. Case Manager asked Ms. Hawkins if there are any issues or concerns that she will like to discuss, Ms. Hawkins stated no.

Ms. Harris continued by stating that she spoke with Child Protective Supervisor II, Francica Williams, on August 3rd, 2015 who informed her that Ms. Gustard picked the children up on August 2nd, 2015 from one of the children’s older siblings. Ms. Harris expressed that an agency representative did not see the children prior to August 5th, 2015. Ms. Harris uttered that the agency was in agreement to replace the children from Ms. Gustard’s care on August 3rd, 2015 but decided against it since OSI was expected to make a visit to the residence that same

The foster parent requested this Foster Boarding Home Replacement Review because she opposes the replacement of the child.

I-CM informed the client that he had contacted and left a message with LA Family Housing the week prior, but no one answered due to the Thanksgiving holiday. CM contacted LA Family Housing again with the client present, but on one answered and a voice message was left. CM continued to assess client’s mental health and medication compliance. CM inquired what outside activities the client has been engaging in. CM inquired about client’s plans for Thanksgiving.

Health Care Integrator (HCI) met with Alana at her case address to assess and coordinates B2H services for her immediate needs. Alana has been diagnosis with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Currently, Alana receives Skill Building (SB) and Special Needs Community Advocacy (SNCAS). HCI inquired how is it going with assigned Waiver Service Provider (WSP), Jessica Reyes. HCI inquired about Alana’s current living situation. HCI inquired about how she is doing in school. HCI provided Alana’s with several pullups for her son. HCI inquired about how she is doing at work. HCI informed Alana to make a list of task she wants to accomplish for this week. HCI inquired if Alana had any issues that she wanted

On 12/216, there was a court hearing to allow DHS to have access to children and the home to seek medical care for Zoey following the DV incident. DHS is requesting out of home placement at this time.

She informed the family that the CPW CW had changed to Tamika Harvey and she provided me and the family with contact information. We discussed the concerns that the Garcia family shared in regards to the case. The family reported that they feel that they are the “bad guys” in the situation and they reported that they do not understand what is going on. The family discussed that the previous CPS CW has been extremely rude to them and during their last phone call she was yelling at them. The family reported that this has been a very hard walk for them. We also discussed the latest conversation in regards to the biweekly visits with the maternal family. The Garcia family reported that they have very busy schedules and they cannot make any promises to be available for transportation during each visit. I informed the family of my earlier discussion with the CPS CW and also informed them that Angelheart had suggested moving the meeting times on Friday to occur during business hours to allow Angelheart to help with that burden for transporting. I informed the family that we had not received a response from the CPS CW at this

Client did not seem worried or bothered when he mentioned not getting in contact with LA Family Housing. Client was surprised that CM made him call LA Family Housing during the session. Client was able to get in contact with a representative from LA Family Housing, and schedule an appointment for his CES assessment. Client stated that LA Family Housing should have answered his call when he called back the first time, because it would have been more convenient for him.

Also adding to the conflict within the home, KB has limited social contact with peers and within her community as her primary social interactions are with her parents. A respite provider with available housing was obtained and she is currently receiving up to 60 days of services. In the upcoming days, I will be researching funding options with the goal of securing permeant funding for her so that she will not have to return to her parent’s home at the end of the 60 days. The measure of success of this placement will be if KB stays in respite care for 60 days, she is her own guardian and this is not a court order placement; therefore she can return to her family home at any

Under no circumstances should this meeting begin before the mother was present. The service coordinator should act as representative of the family throughout the duration of the service plan. Unfortunately, this was not the case in this scenario. The service coordinator communicated she had limited time to commit to the meeting after acknowledging how difficult this case was. In Section II of this code, ethical responsibilities to families is essential to enhance a child’s development in their early childhood program (NAEYC, 2011). Ideal 2.2 states how necessary it is for the child’s caretakers to develop a trusting relationship with family as well as create a meaningful partnership with them (NAEYC,

Based on Miss Orbach's current budget she cannot afford to pay for the children to go to after care. She also received a letter from Social Security the denying two of the children for benefits and she is waiting for a determination letter for the other three. I told Miss Orbach, even if the children were approved by Social Security ,there is a possibility it could effect her other benefits and she should be prepared for that.

She was informed that by checking the DHS system, Luis appears to be eligible for Medicare since he is receiving SSI. I gave her the Salem APD office phone number to contact them.

7/25/17 a transfer ISP was done with the Can worker, ongoing worker, Christopher and Saskia Byars. The worker introduced herself and briefly developed a rapport with the family. The worker went over the reason for DHR involvement, family’s strengths and weaknesses. It was established in the meeting that Mrs. Byars will do parenting, mental health evaluation and treatment along with random drug screening. According to Mrs. Byars, she currently receives counseling services from Fox Army services on base. In additional, her oldest daughter will be receiving counseling as well. Also, It was established when Mr. Byars is working the 2 younger children will attend day care. Lastly, according to Mrs. Byars, she would like to take a trip to Germany to received counseling with her family there. Mrs. Byars, said she has some unresolved issues with her father (emotional abuse) and believes doing family