(Page 33, SOP 4.18 Ongoing Case Planning, #4B-C) You can actually have concurrent goals here, may want to reconsider these additions. Response: There is nothing in Kentucky regulation language that directs concurrent planning for status cases or for PPLA, legal guardianship and emancipation cases, and although may be advisable in some situations, it is not a required practice. (Page 41, SOP 11.30 Permanency Hearings, #s 7-9 under the SSW’s tasks) This should be done way prior to the permanency hearing, and seating this here could be very confusing. Suggest striking here and adding it to your 9month OOHC consult. Response: This language is already placed in SOP 4.18 Ongoing Case Planning (this was formerly numbered 4.35) and it has been removed from this section. (Regarding the deleted section for Negotiating Objectives and Tasks) I would suggest leaving this section alone. I would let it stand and include as preparatory section for both in-home and OOHC. You’ve made both those sections very long, by consolidating. I’d let this chapter stand and incorporate a discussion about goal section in an OOHC section on the same activity. Response: Negotiating Objectives and Tasks has not been merged. Seems like there is some back and forth between calendar days and working days. Is there any way to make this consistent? Response: To the extent possible, each item will be considered to ensure that timeframes are consistent. However, there are sometimes legal or federal guidelines that prevent consistent frame of reference. On the “Menu of Expectations for Batterers in CPS Cases” item number 3 discusses removing all weapons from the house of the perpetrator and giving/selling them to law enforcement for safe keeping. While I understand the need, this “need” needs to be court ordered and I am not sure that “we” can enforce this in some areas. Response: This is correct. This document has been removed from the list of documents to be released until it can be reviewed.
(Page 33, SOP 4.18 Ongoing Case Planning, #4B-C) You can actually have concurrent goals here, may want to reconsider these additions. Response: There is nothing in Kentucky regulation language that directs concurrent planning for status cases or for PPLA, legal guardianship and emancipation cases, and although may be advisable in some situations, it is not a required practice. (Page 41, SOP 11.30 Permanency Hearings, #s 7-9 under the SSW’s tasks) This should be done way prior to the permanency hearing, and seating this here could be very confusing. Suggest striking here and adding it to your 9month OOHC consult. Response: This language is already placed in SOP 4.18 Ongoing Case Planning (this was formerly numbered 4.35) and it has been removed from this section. (Regarding the deleted section for Negotiating Objectives and Tasks) I would suggest leaving this section alone. I would let it stand and include as preparatory section for both in-home and OOHC. You’ve made both those sections very long, by consolidating. I’d let this chapter stand and incorporate a discussion about goal section in an OOHC section on the same activity. Response: Negotiating Objectives and Tasks has not been merged. Seems like there is some back and forth between calendar days and working days. Is there any way to make this consistent? Response: To the extent possible, each item will be considered to ensure that timeframes are consistent. However, there are sometimes legal or federal guidelines that prevent consistent frame of reference. On the “Menu of Expectations for Batterers in CPS Cases” item number 3 discusses removing all weapons from the house of the perpetrator and giving/selling them to law enforcement for safe keeping. While I understand the need, this “need” needs to be court ordered and I am not sure that “we” can enforce this in some areas. Response: This is correct. This document has been removed from the list of documents to be released until it can be reviewed.
PPTL%2011-%20Statement%20of%20Consideration%20for%20Case%20Planning%20SOP.docx