coLorano easton Joe Homa, Director Stephanie Villafuerte Office of Colorado's Child Protection Ombudsman 41300 Broadway, Suite 340 Denver, CO 80203 December 6, 2023, Dear Ms. Villafuerte: We are providing ths letter as the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Child Welfare (DCW) response to the Office of Colorado's the Office of Colorado's Child Protection ‘Ombudsman (CPO) Complaint 2022-6373, regarding Washington County Department of Human Services (WCDHS). Our Division has reviewed this complaint, WCDHS" response, and relevant sections of the Colorado Code of Regulations Volume 7 (7.107.12, 7.107.14, 7.104.1 (©), 7-104,15 (B)(1), 7.104.15 (8)(2), 7.104.15 (C)(1), 7.104.15 (C)(2), 7.202.1 (F), 7.204 (8), 7,301.3 (C), 7,304.52, and 7.304.64) which are detailed below. Your Office outlined thirteen (13) concerns regarding complaint 2022-6373, and below are the DCW responses to each identified concer. Concern 1: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS used the Colorado Family Safety Assessment appropriately when determining whether the situation threatened the safety of the child. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7. 107.12. DCW response to concern 1: DCW does not betieve that ths isa violation of Volume 7 (7.107.12). Upon review in Trails, the safety assessment does accurately document substance use concerns and possible harm to the newborn if the newborn is discharged home with parents. Thus, DCW concludes that the WCDHS used the Colorado Family Safety Assessment tool appropriately Concer 2: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS provided the child's parents with an opportunity to develop a safety plan prior to seeking custody of the child. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.107.14. € 187 str Stet 2a, Dees COMDDD PON. 2200844. yuma gids \6 4eater et C0 cma ume on C20 Carne Concer eort Ser dato ter DCW response to concern 2: DCW does not believe that this is @ violation of Volume 7 (7,107.14). Volume 7 rules do not require a county to attempt a safety plan prior to taking custody. They are only required to consider whether or not a safety plan would be sufficient to control for any safety concerns that are present. Colorado Regulation Volume 7 (7,107.17 (F)) states that safety plans shall not be developed if the safety analysis results in the decision that human or social services custody isthe only plan that fs sufficient to control for all identified current of impending danger. WCDHS appropriately completed the Colorado Family Safety Assessment which indicated that a safety plan would be insufficient to provide safety and supported thefr decision to seek custody to ensure the immediate safety of the child, Concern 3: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS made efforts to engage the father in the assessment. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.104.1 (C). DCW response to concern 3: DCW believes that this isa violation of Volume 7 (7.104.1(C)) There ts no documentation in the Record of Contact notes about attempts to meet with the father during the assessment, While the closure summary states that the caseworker attempted to meet with the father, a closure summary is not sufficient to document attempted contacts as it does not specify the date(s), time(s), or typets) of contact(s) attempted. CConcem 4: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS notified either parent of the outcome of the child welfare assessment. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.104.15 (8)(1). DCW response to concern 4: DCW partially betieves that this is a violation of Volume 7 (7.104.15 (B)(1)) regarding the father. Trails documentation indicates a notice was sent to the mother on September 4, 2019. This documentation is supported by a letter sent on September 4, 2019, regarding the finding that was reviewed in the county’s electronic record file system by DCW during the in-person review. In addition, WCOHS staff did make attempts to contact the mother by text message and attempted to see both parents at their home on the date the letter was sent. Aside from the attempt at a home visit, there were no documented efforts to notify the father of the assessment outcome. ee Se | ha tes Ee Bat l€ &is. lafuerte Insert CPO compan ant on CP Campton Cancer eon ‘Concem 5: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS notified either person alleged responsible for abuse and neglect about the outcome of the child welfare assessment. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.104.15 (B)(2). DCW response to concern 5: DCW does not believe that this isa violation of Volume 7 (7.104.15 (8)(2)). Tails documentation indicates a notice was sent to the mother on September 4, 2019, This documentation is supported by a letter sent on September 4, 2019, regarding the finding that was reviewed in the county's electronic record file system by DCW during the in-person review. In addition, WCDHS staff did make attempts to contact the ‘mother by text message which was documented in the county's electronic filing system, and attempted to see both parents at their home on the date the letter was sent, Concein 6: Assessment documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS notified the local law enforcement agency and the District Attorney's Office regarding the founded neglect findings. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7. 104.15 (C)(t) DCW response to concern 6: DOW believes that this is a violation of Volume 7 (7.104.15, (C)(1)}. While under the Abuse/Meglect (A/N) tab in the Trails assessment, the “report to law enforcement” box is checked, the county could not verify the date a notice was sent to the local law enforcement agency or District Attorney's Office. CConcem 7: Assessment dacumentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS notified the Parent of the child abuse and neglect findings made against them by certified mail or that the notification included the WCDHS’ dispute resolution process, how to request a state level appeal or how the findings were made. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.104.15 (02). DCW response to concern 7: DCW does not believe that this isa violation of Volume 7 (7104.15 (C)@2)). WCDHS made a finding against the mother for neglect - environment injurious, Trails documentation indicates a notice was sent to the mother on September 4, 2019, This documentation is supported by a letter sent on September 4, 2019, regarding the finding that was reviewed in the county’s electronic record filesystem by DCW during the in-person review, The notice does include information about the appeal process. Volume 7404.15 (C)(2) requires the notification to the person found responsible for child abuse and/or neglect be sent by first-class mail, not certified mail ‘s75snvoan Si, ea ei COMBO PD 42 AO) HABE wncctada soi.ovate ar PO ai ae on cr contin Ca re Concer 8: Case documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS made required efforts to engage and search for family members in the case. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.304.52. DCW response to concern 8: DCW believes that this is a violation of Volume 7 (7.304.52). Upon initial Trails review, there is documentation of giving parents the affidavit; however, the Family Services Plan docs not document any fellow up once the parents returned the affidavit. There is documentation that the county determined that the child’s current placement was appropriate, so no further family search was completed. Upon the DCW ‘in-person review af the county's etectronic record file system, we noted an affidavit signed by the mother explaining why the relative is not a good fit, and an affidavit signed by the father indicating he did not want the child placed out of state. There was no documentation, however, regarding why they would not be an appropriate placement option, and no required follow-up was documented about the matter. During the in-person review it was discussed that even if parents state a placement preference for the family Uisted on the Relative Affidavit, proper exploration must occur for all relative and kinship supports. Concern 9: Case documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS reviewed the Family Services Pian to ensue thatthe required services were being attended by the child, biological parents, or placement providers and how any barriers to the services were being addressed, If accurate, this may be a violation of 7,301.3 (C) DCW response to concern 9: DCW does nat believe that this isa vialation of Volume 7 (7.301.3 (C)) as to the mother. Upon the DCW in-person review of the county's electronic record file system, there is a signature from the mother that she received, reviewed, and agreed with the Family Services Plan. DCW does believe that this isa violation of Volume 7 (7,301.3 (C)) as to the father. There was no documentation that the father received, reviewed, or agreed with the Family Services Plan. Concer 10: Case dacumentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS reviewed the Family Services Plan timely. DCW response to concern 10: DCW partially believes with this violation, WCDHS did not review all 90-day reviews timely, as two of the reviews were completed outside of the ‘90-day window (8/18/21 and 6/21/22). Upon the DCW in-person review of the county's a eee eb | mt Ext Dr |Ne ature ert die of tor wher on CFO Campane Cancer rept electronic record file system, there is @ 3A Treatment/Prevention Plan Objective that is signed by the caseworker, but this was not done so timely, Concern 11: Case documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS revised the parenting time plan from 2019. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.304.64. DCW response to concern 11: DCW believes that this fsa violation of Volume 7 (7.204.64). Upon the DCW in-person review of the county's electronic record file system, there is a signed visitation COVID policy from the father and the mother dated May 27, 2020. The father and the mother signed another on March 3, 2021, and another was signed by the courts and provided to both parents on January 5, 2023. Also, aligned with Volume 7,304.64 (F) the duration of visitation between the child and his family did increase in frequency as the report of contacts indicates visitation increased to overnights by May of 2022. Concern 12: Case documentation does not demonstrate that the WCDHS made efforts to see ‘each parent monthly and face-to-face to discuss services, progress and substantive case Issues. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.202.1 (F)(2).. DCW response to concern 12: DCW believes that this is a violation of Volume 7 (7.204 (B)) (please note different Volume 7 citation 7.204 (8) as there fs no (2) for 7.202.1 (F)). While there were attempts and contacts with the parents made via other communication methods, there is no clear documentation to indicate that the caseworker made face-to-face attempts to see each parent monthly for the months that were missed in accordance with Volume 7.204 (8). Concern 13: Case dacumentation daes not demonstrate that the WCDHS’ former director maintained a social caseworker certification despite his participation in prevention, assessment, and ongoing caseworker services. If accurate, this may be a violation of 7.603.1 0). DCW response to concern 13: DCW does not believe that this is a violation of Volume 7 (7.603.1 (0)). While it is correct that the county’s former agency director did not maintain a Social caseworker or casework supervisor certification during his time at the WCDHS, based fn the Trails case review and our in-person work with WCDHS staff, there is no evidence to support that the former director supervised assessment or ongoing casework services. DCW"s review indicated that the former director was present for the following events: a home vist, supervising a urine analysis, transporting a child, and a termination of parental rights ona aa Ome pL LH, ened | Qei. Varta Inet CPD cpa aber CRO Camps Concern eer Inert dato ter discussion that included the WCDHS supervisor of child welfare. Volume 7.603.1(E)(1) outlines the job requirements for casework supervisor certification and the previous director did not meet the criteria listed. The county was aware of this and ensured that the \WCOHS-certified child welfare supervisor approved all casework decisions. OCW believes there may have been more case activities for which the former director was present due to the director being mentioned through the body of a contact note; however, there 1s no evidence in Trails documentation or the county's electronic record filesystem to suggest he acted in a supervisory capacity in making or approving case decisions. ‘The Division of Chilé Welfare believes Washington County Department of Human Services fully cooperated with us during our review. ‘This includes participating in a two-day on-site review of the county's electronic record file system conducted on August 7-8, 2023, a training where DCW met with the county's caseworkers and child welfare supervisor, and ‘ther follow up efforts. The dates DCW met with the county's child welfare staff for in-person training are as follows: August 3, 2073 - training regarding the use of the Colorado Family Safety Assessment tool throughout the life of a case. Caseworkers were able to articulate how the use of the safety assessment tool is to be used in decision-making and how they can increase the use of the safety assessment tool during the later stages of a case. This training included a review of county responsibilities outlined in Volume 7 noted by the CPO in this complaint even if DCW disagreed with the CPO's finding (7.107.12, 7.107.14, 7.104.4 (C), and 7.104.15 (B)(1)). ‘August 8, 2023 - training regarding consistent communication with parents, persons. responsible for abuse or neglect, local aw enforcement, and the District Attorney's Office (for founded findings) about the outcome of a child welfare assessment. This training included a review of county responsibilities outlined in Volume 7 noted by the CPO in this, complaint even if DCW disagreed with the CPO's finding (7,104.15 (B)(1), 7.104.15 (B)(2), and 7.104.15 (C)(1)). September 26, 2023 - training regarding the use of the Colorado Family Risk Assessment tool and holding family engagement meetings when the family scores High Risk on the tool, Caseworkers were able to articulate how the use of the risk assessment toot is to be used in support planning with the family. November 2, 2023 - training regarding family search and family engagement through the life of the case including during treatment planning. This training included a review of county stem See ee em CO are Mel as Eat Der | &{tc cena ron CO Cane Cane et Page 7010 esponsibilities outlined in Volume 7 noted by the CPO in this complaint even if DCW did not believe a violation occurred (7.202.1 (F), 7.204 (8)*, and 7.304.52).. ‘While there are issues related to parental notification and documentation thereof, during the DCW training provided to the county, the WCDHS acknowledges the need to improve consistency and accuracy regarding natices. WCDHS affirmed its commitment to improve practice in compliance with the Code of Colorado Regulations. WCDHS has demonstrated full tengagement in addressing the findings identified in this complaint. Itis also worth noting that while there are policy issues to correct, the county's contact notes do reflect family ‘engagement throughout assessments and cases, including efforts such as emails, letters, text messages, face-to-face meetings, telephone calls, and family engagement meetings. Finally, as a result of our work, the Division of Child Welfare did not reach the same ‘conclusion about systemic staff bias regarding WCDHS staff holding negative opinions of parents. In the CPO notification letter dated June 22, 2023, the CPO stated, “The CPO has attempted to address practice issues directly with the WCDHS, without success. The WCDHS is resistant to CPO concems and suggestions for practice improvement.” DCW has learned ‘that as to complaint 2072-6373, there was a legal issue under review that impacted the WCDHS' ability to engage in communication related to records that were the subject of judicial review. This impacted communication between staff at the WCDHS and the CPO. Throughout our involvement with Washington County Department of Human Services leadership and staff whether at in-person reviews, via phone calls, or via email or other correspondence, the Division of Child Welfare has experienced county staff to be forthright, ‘open to training and learning, interested in delving into any purported issues and invested in ‘improving their child welfare casework practice. The county promptly responded to all requests we made and made readily available their electronic record file system. DW's review was conducted by multiple staf, included an in-person review of thelr RAMI Digital Document Solutions System, included in-person individual interviews with current |WCDHS child welfare staff, and included virtual individual interviews with two former staff. DEW did not find in its review a pattern of decision-making or practice indicative of systemic bias against parents, and while the complaint letter broadly alleges that “staff of the WCDHS held negative opinions of parents,” DCW did not encounter during its review any indication. that there were/are negative opinions impacting casework in a systemic way. AS the complaint letter does not distinguish whether feelings of potential or alleged bias was & Rs me, rd hi og CORN. POSE F DAKE RG somata seteMe, Vauerte Inet CP compan aber on Ch Comins Cancer repre ier dato eter related to the suspected rule violations or a separate pattern of instances where bias was alleged to be present, DCW has been unable to verify the root of these concerns. Current and former employees interviewed noted that the former WICDHS Director was. ‘involved in and up to date on several cases. However, DCW notes that the degree of involvement is not atypical for county departments and did not identify that the Director’ behavior altered the autcome Of any Lase. Indeed, Ue current and former employees denied that the Director alone made case decisions or unduly influenced how cases were handled. As such, DCW did not identify a need for further historical case review. DCW further finds most of the reported behaviors of the previous Director identified by current or former \WECDHS staff as concerning fall under the scope of a human resources review rather than a county practice concern and defers to the county human resources department for further ‘investigation of any concerns in that area. ‘DCW has concluded that the totality of information provided for the complaints does not support claims of alleged bias and, as such, DCW has not identified the need for corrective ‘action or further review related to systemic bias in casework. Regardless, DCW now and in the future welcomes any additional information from any party or stakeholder regarding systemic bias or other issues that affect the county's ability to serve children and families in its child welfare operations. [DCW continues to monitor and review samples of WCDHS" caseload to ensure adherence to rules, the most recent review November 30, 2023 with the following relevant results: Volume 7.107.12 use of the Colorado Family Safety Assessment appropriately when determining whether the situation threatened the safety of the child, ‘© The county has had eleven (11) new assessments since August 2023: 1 Youth in Conflict (VIC), 4 High Risk Assessments (HRA), and 6 Family Assessment Responses (FAR), Inthe 11 assessments reviewed, the assigned caseworker completed the safety ‘assessment tool appropriately. The county has improved the quality of their ‘documentation in the tool including the areas of caregiver and child functioning, and ‘general discipline practice used. The county has also completed a new safety assessment tool as required in Volume 7 (7.107.11 (H)) when there isa significant ‘change in household circumstances and a need to reassess the safety of the child(ren) youth. nosenanes nen ae ae | &sh, Viana Inst 0 conan nan n €P Caplan Cancer eont Volume 7.107.14 provide parents with an opportunity to develop a safety plan prior to seeking legal action. ‘¢ Inthe 11 assessments reviewed, the assigned caseworker completed all of the Colorado Family Safety Assessment tools appropriately which supports the safety decisions made. ‘Volume 7.104.1 (C) efforts to engage the father in Ue assessment. ‘© Inthe 11 assessments reviewed, the assigned caseworker generally has made contact ‘with both parents or attempted to make contact with both parents via multiple types of contact methods: telephone calls, voicemail messages, text messages, attempted hhome visits, and letters. Volume 7.104.15 (B)(1) notification to parent(s) of the outcome of a child welfare assessment. ‘¢ Inthe 11 assessments reviewed, the assigned caseworker has made contact with both parents or attempted to make contact with both parents via multiple types of contact ‘methods: telephone calls, voicemail messages, text messages, attempted home visits, and letters. ‘Volume 7,104.15 (8)(2) notification to the person(s) alleged responsible for abuse and neglect (PRAN) about the outcome of a child welfare assessment. ‘© VICDHS provided further clarification regarding their process for sending letters to the RAN, and now also include a documented contact note in Trails confirming the date the letter and all attachments were sent via first class mail, Volume 7.202.1 (F)(2) ‘please note different Volume 7 citation 7.204 (B) as there is no (2) for 7.202.1 (F) efforts to see each parent monthly and face-to-face to discuss services, progress, and substantive case issues. '* Ina review of Results Oriented Management (ROM) July to October the county has been trending upwards improving (approximately 18%) on this metric of seeing the parents monthly face-to-face. ‘Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Complaint 2022-6373. Please let us know if you hhave any questions. Sincerely, Yolanda yt yay ae Arredondo Sesoabans 187 shan n,n fla, Oe COMO PDEA FOR EEEDL wc gothsths CFO capplaint mater on €R0 Colones once rare Yolanda Arredondo Deputy Director Division of Chilé Welfare Colorado Department of Human Services BP mnt ana A ca | letons eae brate | ©