6 comments
Section 8.1.9 states "The APS investigation and registration shall remain open..." until APS either receives a RTR request or the 30 days pass w/ no request. If a request is made then "APS investigation and registration shall remain open..." until the director/designee makes a final decision.
In the last paragraph of Section 8.1.11 it states that if no RTR is requested then "Document in the APS investigation notes, RECLOSE the investigation..."
These two sections are contradictory. Section 8.1.9 states the APS investigation AND registration SHALL remain open which means, in peerplace, that we cannot enter a certification/disposition as this will then close the investigation (not the registration). However, in Section 8.1.11. it states to "reclose" the investigation which suggests that the investigation had been closed, meaning the certification/disposition had been entered, while APS waited to see if a RTR would be requested. In this case, one was not requested so policy is stating to enter this into APS investigation notes (which can only be done in an OPEN investigation) and then reclose the investigation.
So, either we are supposed to enter the certification/disposition into Peerplace to close the investigation, reopen (by an admin) when necessary, and reclose when appropriate OR we follow section 8.1.9 and do not close the investigation which means we do NOT enter a certification/disposition.
If guidance is to be followed in 8.1.9 and the investigation SHALL remain open, then we need an option in peerplace to explain why a certification/disposition was not entered on the due date.
Unless, however, the state wants us to enter the certification/disposition into peerplace thus closing the investigation and creating a time stamp, and then have the admin reopen the Inv and wait the 30 days to determine if a perpetrator is going to request a RTR or not, enter applicable notes, and then reclose? This then satisfies the needs of having a timely certification/disposition entered while also satisfying the requirement in 8.1.9 of keeping an investigation open.
After skimming over the contents proposed for the update, it appears there is contradictory information regarding whether an investigation remains open for 30 days while waiting to see if an Right To Review (RTR) if received or if the investigation should be closed and then reopened if a RTR if received. In one section the guidance states the investigation Shall remain open and in another section, it states that once the RTR is received and/or the hearing is held, the case record should be updated to reflect and the investigation be "re-closed". There needs to be clarification on whether the investigation actually remains open for an additional 30 days or it is closed and reopened if a RTR is received. Also, there needs to be some way of tracking those investigations left open for the additional 30 days if that is the decided upon way to handle. Otherwise, they are going to register as overdue.
8.1.3- Circumstances requiring notification to alleged perpetrator when the disposition is needs protective services and accepts, needs protective services and refuses, or needs protective services no longer exists and the department notified a licensing, regulatory or legal authority of the disposition.
8.1.6 Required contents in the right to review notification: A summary of the evidence and information used by the local department to support the findings for the investigation; inform the alleged perpetrator about his right to review; and if applicable, identify all licensing, regulatory, or legal authorities and the date the authorities were notified.
8.1.15 When information is requested by the alleged perpetrator:
Identifying information of adult: name, DOB, etc, is prohibited from being released
In summary, it is my opinion that this policy has the potential to put the adult victim at further risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. There should be a revision of this policy to include the option to not send a right to review to the perpetrator if the adult requests that the review is not be sent and/or that the APS worker/supervisor/director or designee finds that sending a review would put the adult at risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation.
The Right to Review process could be potentially dangerous to the APS clients especially in situations where the client lives with the alleged perpetrator and/or the alleged perpetrator is their primary caregiver. In many situations the client chooses to not press charges, chooses to remain living with the alleged perpetrator and/or chooses to continue having the alleged perpetrator as their primary caregiver. Also other family members and/or household members could become upset with the client for naming the alleged perpetrator. This could cause retaliation to the client or cause the client to refuse other assistance from the APS worker or other community services.
What does this policy do to protect the elderly and disabled in the Commonwealth? It appears to affect their ability to pursue the most important philosophy of Adult Protective Services; the right to self determination. This policy places the individual at further risk of abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. Who are we trying to protect; the individual who is in need of services or the perpetrator?