Title:
Section 2:
Chapter 4:
Subsection 1.8 :
Effective Date:
Child Welfare Manual
Intake
Investigation Response
Reaching a Conclusion
July 16, 2008
4.1.8 Reaching a Conclusion
The investigative conclusion will rest on the worker's conclusion after gathering and assessing all relevant facts and evidence. The worker will most often rely on an assessment of:
- The age of the child;
- The nature, location, and severity of the injury/neglect;
- The degree to which the worker is certain that the injury was caused by willful or negligent acts of the alleged perpetrator; and
- The amount and nature of evidence supporting the conclusion.
NOTE: The documentation in both investigations and assessments should clearly show how information obtained during past involvement (including prior CA/N reports) with the family was used to assist in planning with the family and to draw a conclusion.
NOTE: Specifically document on the Child Abuse/Neglect Investigation/Family Assessment Summary CPS-1, behavioral and physical CA/N indicators and evidence that support and/or are contrary to the CA/N allegations reported. Use complete names (rather than 1-6 codes and A-F codes) for the participants on the CPS-1 in order to assure clarity.
The possible investigative conclusions are:
- Court Adjudicated;
- Preponderance of Evidence;
- Unsubstantiated-preventive services indicated;
- Unsubstantiated;
- Unable to locate;
- Located out of state;
- Home Schooling;
- Inappropriate report.
Related Subject: Section 2 Chapter 4 Attachment E Decision Making Investigative Conclusion Guidelines
4.1.8.1 Court Adjudicated
This investigative conclusion must be supported in writing by the circuit court (including the criminal and juvenile division). Once a court order has been received, the Circuit Manager/designee must review the court order carefully to determine whether any or all findings meet the "court adjudication" standard.
A conclusion of "court adjudicated" is the appropriate in the following situations:
- Judicial Review: The Division receives in writing from the circuit court that as a result of a de novo Judicial Review that a Preponderance of Evidence (POE) finding has been "sustained" or "substantiated". This occurs after an alleged perpetrator requested a Judicial Review of findings upheld through the appeal process, including findings upheld by the CANRB.
- Juvenile Court Action:
- Cases in which the victim is placed in the custody of Children’s Division (CD) and specific findings of Child Abuse/Neglect are adjudicated. The adjudicatory hearing must have been held for these cases to be exempt.
- Cases in which a child is not taken into custody, but the juvenile court, through a judicial order, upholds the findings of the Division on the incident.
In both situations, the court order must include specific allegations, and the alleged perpetrator found to have been the person who abused/neglected the child, for the court adjudication standard to apply.
- Criminal Convictions - Cases where the alleged perpetrator has been found guilty by due process of charges relative to the CA/N incident.
If there are any questions as to whether the "court adjudicated" standard applies, staff should immediately refer the case through supervisory channels to the Division of Legal Services to assure that "court adjudicated" is the appropriate determination.
Updating FACES for Court Adjudication
It is imperative that workers update FACES for court adjudicated cases immediately upon notification of the Court. Local procedures should be developed so that CD staff work closely with the courts to monitor cases for Court Adjudication in order to update the findings in a timely fashion.
The Circuit Manager/designee must review the court order and case record immediately following court adjudication to assure all data is entered timely and accurately, and to determine which specific findings were adjudicated and which findings are still subject for appeal.
To Update FACES the CSW shall immediately:
- Update the conclusion on the Conclusion Screen from "Preponderance of Evidence" to "Court Adjudicated";
- Update the individual conclusion on the Participant Characteristics Screen from "Preponderance of Evidence" to "Court Adjudicated"; and
- Update the Appeals screen with the appropriate determination.
NOTE: The Conclusion screen in FACES can be updated by Supervisors (or above) on closed cases to complete this update to the overall conclusion status.
- Change the conclusion date on the Conclusion screen to reflect the date the court made a "substantiated" determination;
- Update the investigation conclusion summary in FACES to note the outcome of the adjudication hearing by specifying which findings were "court adjudicated", and which ones (if any) will remain “preponderance of evidence” only.
For cases where the Division found POE on multiple types of abuse/neglect, and the Court only adjudicated on one or some of the findings (not all), then the conclusion status in FACES should still be changed to reflect conclusion code “A” (Court Adjudicated). Staff will need to specify in the Conclusion Summary on FACES which finding of abuse or neglect was adjudicated, and clearly note which findings or abuse or neglect remain substantiated by POE only. This applies to criminal convictions as well. The alleged perpetrator would continue to have the option to appeal findings not specifically adjudicated by the Court.
For example:
If an alleged perpetrator was found by the Division to have committed physical abuse and sexual abuse, however, the court only adjudicates on the physical abuse, the sexual abuse finding would remain “preponderance of evidence” and therefore still be subject to appeal. The Circuit Manager should assure the information is reflected accurately in FACES. The Circuit Manager will proceed with the alleged perpetrator’s appeal process accordingly for those findings not adjudicated.
4.1.8.2 Substantiated by Preponderance of Evidence (POE)
This investigative conclusion indicates a substantiated finding by a “preponderance of evidence” that abuse or neglect has occurred. The
finding must be supported to a degree of evidence that is of greater
weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in
opposition to it or evidence which as a whole shows the fact to be proved
to be more probable than not.
NOTE: Reports of alleged educational neglect of a five or six-year old child, enrolled in a public school, shall not be found Preponderance of Evidence for educational neglect if the parent provides documentation that they have made a written request to the school to drop their child from the rolls.
NOTE: Investigations of medical neglect for reasons of religious exemption shall not be found Preponderance of Evidence.
Related Subject: Section 2 Chapter 4 Attachment L Preponderance of Evidence
Related Subject: Section 2 Chapter 4 Attachment G Collection of Evidence
4.1.8.2.1 Preponderance of Evidence Findings on Educational
Neglect
If the only basis for a report was educational neglect, which is found "preponderance of evidence":
- Send a copy of the completed investigative report to the school
district in which the child resides.
Educational neglect investigations findings of "preponderance of
evidence," where other allegations of abuse or neglect are contained
in the investigation:
- Send to the school a summary which contains information on the
educational neglect only, or
- Send a copy of the investigation with all information blacked out
which does not relate to the educational neglect. This will assist
the school in making an appropriate referral to the prosecuting
attorney.
Related Subject: Section 2 Chapter 8 School Related Issues
4.1.8.2.2 Preponderance of Evidence Findings on Unknown
Perpetrators
Some investigations result in substantiated findings that a victim was
abused or neglected, however the identity of the perpetrator can not
be determined. (Example: A child has physical evidence consistent
with shaken baby syndrome or physical findings consistent with
sexual abuse, however the child is too young to make a statement
and there is no clear evidence to single out a perpetrator.)The
worker may make a substantiated finding by Preponderance of
Evidence on an unknown perpetrator, but only after the following:
- Worker clearly documents the evidence that lead to the
determination that the victim was abused or neglect;
- Worker documents efforts to determine the identity of the
perpetrator;
- Worker’s supervisor reviews the investigation and agrees with the
substantiated finding or makes suggestions to further efforts to
identify a perpetrator;
- If the Worker’s Supervisor is in agreement with the substantiated
finding on an unknown perpetrator, the report is forwarded to the
Field Support Manager or a Program Manager for review;
- The Field Support Manager or a Program Manager may suggest
further action to determine the identity of the perpetrator or
authorize the decision to substantiate on an unknown perpetrator.
No investigation may be concluded with a substantiated finding on
an unknown perpetrator without authorization from a Field Support
Manager or a Program Manager.
- Worker documents authorization to substantiate on an unknown
perpetrator in the CPS-1 narrative section.
4.1.8.2.3 Updating FACES Conclusion Screen
Upon conclusion of an investigation found to be substantiated by
POE, the worker will update the FACES Conclusion Screen using the
POE conclusion code of “B”. However, new levels will be identified
which include:
- POE Preliminary Finding - Upon conclusion of the investigation found to be substantiated by POE, the worker will enter a “B” = POE on the FACES Conclusion screen. Please note, the system will display a new field “Deadline for Alleged Perpetrator(s) to Request Review” with a due date the perpetrator(s) must request such review. This is a display field only.
- POE Preliminary Finding Pending Appeal - Upon receipt of a request for an administrative review the staff must update the Administrative Review Request Information fields on the FACES Appeals screen. Staff must also update conclusion status on each child/concern on the Participant screen to "preliminary finding pending appeal". If no updates are completed within seventy (70) days the system will automatically update "preliminary finding" to "final determination".
- POE Final Determination - CANRB staff will update FACES conclusion status following the CANRB Review.
4.1.8.3 Unsubstantiated-Preventive Services Indicated
This investigative conclusion is appropriate when there are insufficient facts to make a finding by a “preponderance of evidence” that abuse or neglect occurred, however, during the course of the investigation, the worker has identified factors, through observations, interviews and collaterals, which if unresolved could potentially contribute to abuse/neglect. This finding requires preventive services to be provided to the family.
4.1.8.4 Unsubstantiated
This investigative conclusion is appropriate in the absence of evidence or identified indicators which pose a specific threat to the child.
4.1.8.5 Home Schooling
This investigative conclusion is appropriate when the parent has stated to the investigator that he/she is providing for his/her child's education and the report has been sent to the Superintendent of Schools of the appropriate school district.
Related Subject: Section 2 Chapter 8.3.1, Guidelines for Letter to School District on Reports Concluded as Home Schooling
If there are other allegations in the same report, those allegations will also be thoroughly investigated. The finding reached may be "Preponderance of Evidence" for other allegations. If a child is at risk and should receive medical treatment, a juvenile court referral should be made. The court may exercise its authority to ensure that medical services are provided when the child's health requires it.
4.1.8.6 Unable to Locate
The “unable to locate” conclusion may be used only after all three of the following criteria have been met:
- Only when not one single child or any parent/caretaker included in the report is located;
- Only after the Children’s Service Worker has searched all available resources that can help to locate the family and children;
- Examine the Division’s internal sources of information such as:
- Income Maintenance and Food Stamp records and information via Family Support Division (FSD) workers;
- Children's Division family records in all known counties having current or past family involvement via personal contact with workers, review of physical case records, or review of FACES information;
- Examine external sources of information such as:
- Local, county and state law enforcement agencies
- Child’s school
- Neighbors
- Known friends or extended family members of the child/family
- Postmaster: The local post office will have a form for requesting address information. This may be completed and sent to the postmaster of the post office serving the parent's last known address.
- Public utilities: If previous address and name on account are known.
- Directories: Telephone, city, street, trade, labor, and professional, etc.
- Other public agencies in Missouri
- Court/county records
- Societies or lodges
NOTE: The Children’s Service Worker should be careful to not disclose the reason for the inquiry unless absolutely necessary out of consideration for the client’s right to confidentiality.
- Only after the supervisor agrees that sufficient attempts have been made and the Children’s Service Worker has exhausted all available resources to locate the family.