Child Welfare Proceedings Essentials, Updates and Best Practices

1. Child Welfare ProceedingsEssentials, Updates and Best Practices Jennifer A. Pilette, J.D. Juvenile Referee (ret.) Adjunct Professor of Law: Wayne State University Law School University of Detroit/Mercy Law School

2. What’s Ahead? • Legal landscape of child protective proceedings • Federal statutory and regulatory framework • Michigan statutes, court rules, regulations, forms • Nuts and Bolts—child protective hearing process and procedure walkthrough • Included case law updates!

3. Federal Framework • Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 25 USC 1901 et seq • Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 • Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 • Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 • Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 • Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2015

4. Suspected and Identified Indian Children • Rules, standards, time requirements different for Indian child • Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) • 25 USC 1901 et seq. • Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) • MCL 712B.1 et seq. • See, in re Jones Lefmann, 316 Mich App 110 (2016), “might be Cherokee”

5. ICWA continued - NEW CASES • In re England, 314 Mich App 245 (2016) • In re Williams, Mich (#155994, rel’d 5/18/18). MIFPA allows a native parent to withdraw his/her release prior to entry of a final order of adoption. • In re Detmer/Beaudry, 321 Mich App 49 (2017), Application for Lv. Den’d, – Application of the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA). • In re Hodge, #338894 (unpublished, 1/18/18)- when the court needs to do “active efforts” (affirmed).

6. Active Efforts… When Reasonable is Not Good Enough Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) – 25 USC 1901 et seq. Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) – MCL 712B.1 et seq. • Active Efforts required to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. • Re: Removal  712B.15(2) / MCR 3.967(D) • Re: Reunification  712B.15(3) / MCR 3.977(G)(1) • “Active Efforts” Defined: • MCL 712B.3 • MCR 3.002(1)

7. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 • Established program for: • Adoption assistance, strengthening foster care assistance, improve child welfare and social services. • Key Provisions: • Reasonable Efforts – to prevent removal and return home ASAP in order to receive federal $$$ (if eligible) • Establish prevention and reunification services / programs • Required to review status every 180 days to determine child’s best interests (note: Michigan law requires more frequent) • Required determination as to child’s future permanency w/in 18 months after placement

8. Why Reasonable Efforts Are Required • To prevent or eliminate the need for removal from the home. • To reunify the family.*

9. Reasonable Efforts Are Required • To prevent or eliminate the need for removal from the home. “Consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child.” • MCL 712A.14b / MCR 3.963(B)(1)(c) – Required finding for Ex Parte Order for Protective Custody • MCL 712A.13a(9)(d) / MCR 3.965(C)(2)(d) – Required finding for Placement of Child into Foster Care • MCL 712A.18f(4) – Required finding in Order of Disposition • PSM 715-2 – “Removal and Placement of Children” • Reasonable efforts to prevent removal MUST be documented on the Petition. (p1) • Must document the reasonable efforts provided, OR why it was not possible to provide reasonable efforts. (p3) • See also – FOM 722-06 (p11) for examples of reasonable efforts. • To reunify the family.MCL 712A.19a(2) / FOM 722-06 (p11) – Reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases, unless an exception applies.

10. Exceptions - Reasonable Efforts Not Required • Judicial determination of parent subjected child to aggravated circumstances (see MCL 722.638) • Parent has a criminal conviction for specific offenses (murder of another child of the parent, vol. manslaughter of another child of the parent, aiding and abetting in murder / vol. manslaughter of another child of the parent, attempted murder, conspiracy/solicitation of murder, felony assault resulting in serious injury to child or another child of parent) • Parent has had rights to the child’s siblings involuntarily terminated • Parent is required by court order to register under the sex offenders registration act • MCL 712A.13a(6) – *Registered Sex Offender Parents  DHHS may, but is not required to, make reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parent. The court may order reasonable efforts to be made by the DHHS.

11. Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 • Amended Section IV-E of Social Security Act • Develop structure to ensure effective delivery of child welfare services • Ensure safety, permanency, and well-being • Focus on outcomes, data collection, and CQI • Key Provisions: • Focused on child safety while in child welfare system • 15 of last 22 Months Rule • States to determine when reasonable efforts NOT required • Set PPH at 12 months

12. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 • More amendments to IV-E of Social Security Act • Key Provisions: • Requires the following: • Relative Notice  Agency notify ALL adult relatives of a child within 30 days of removal of options to become a placement resource for the child. • Sibling Placement  Agency must make reasonable efforts to place siblings removed from their home into the same placement. • Educational Stability  Case plan must have plan to ensure educational stability of children in foster care. • Youth Transition  Agency must work with youth to develop a transition plan 90 days before the youth’s 18th birthday.

13. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA)McKinney-Vento Amendments This Act amends the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and removes the term “awaiting foster care placement” from the definition of “homeless.” • As of December 10, 2016, “awaiting foster care placement” is removed from the law. • Foster youth will NO LONGER be considered homeless under McKinney-Vento at this time. • School districts will NO LONGER be responsible for transportation costs after this date. • MDHHS will have responsibility for transportation costs, as of Dec. 10, 2016. • Further resources: www.michigan.gov/homeless

14. Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2015 • To promote well-being and normalcy of children in foster care • Includes important provisions for transition of older youth to meaningful permanency • The Juvenile Code was amended to require a judicial determination at the PPH regarding whether the agency or foster parents are following the new “reasonable and prudent parent standard” “decisions characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain a child’s health, safety, and best interest while encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child when determining whether to allow a child in foster care to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural and social activities.”

15. Michigan’s Child Welfare Statutory Framework • Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 et seq. • Juvenile Code, 712A.1 et seq.(including recent amendments) • Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, 712B.1 et seq. • Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, 798.101 et seq. • Foster Care Review Boards, 722.131 et seq. • Foster Care and Adoption Services Act, 722.951 et seq. • Guardianship Assistance Act, 722.871 et seq. • Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care Act, 400.641 et seq. • Adoption Code, 710.1 et seq. • Michigan Children’s Institute, 400.201 et seq.

16. What’s What and Who’s Who? • “Agency” 712A.13a(1)(a) / MCR 3.903(C)(1) • public/private organization responsible under court order OR contractual agreement for the juvenile’s care and supervision. • “Contrary to the Welfare of the Child” – MCR 3.903(C)(4) • Includes, but is not limited to, situations in which the child’s life, physical health, or mental well-being is unreasonably placed at risk. • “Respondent” – MCR 3.903(C)(12) • Parent, guardian, or legal custodian, or nonparent adult who is alleged to have committed an offense against a child.

17. The CPS Investigation

18. Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect • Governed by Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 • Central Intake Call Center in Kent County • Previous intake was county specific • Phone 1-855-444-3911 – Open 24/7/365 • Screens cases and assigns for investigation, if necessary • “Reasonable Cause” to Suspect Abuse/Neglect • 722.623 - Mandated Reporters • Doctors, dentists, social workers, teachers, police, etc. • 722.624 – Permitted Reporters • Any other person

19. Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect (cont.) • Identity of Person Reporting Child Abuse or Neglect • Identity of person is CONFIDENTIAL – MCL 722.625 • Identity may be disclosed only if: • Consent of reporter • Judicial process (i.e., court order) • Exemptions: • Agency investigation, 722.627(2)(a) • Law enforcement, 722.627(2)(b) • Children’s Ombudsman, 722.627(2)(n)

20. The Investigation—Case Classification MCL 722.628d / PSM 711-4, 5 • CPS Determines Category of Case (5 Categories) • Category V – No evidence of abuse / neglect. No services needed. • Category IV – No preponderance of evidence of child abuse or neglect, but indication of future risk of harm. Community services recommended. • DHHS assists family with obtaining voluntary services to address the perceived risks • Category III – Preponderance of evidence of child abuse or neglect. There is low or moderate risk of future harm to the child. Community services needed. • DHHS assists family with obtaining voluntary services to address the perceived risks • If no voluntary participation, or family does not make progress towards alleviating the risk level – DHHS may reclassify as a category II

21. The Investigation—Case Classification (cont.) MCL 722.628d / PSM 711-4, 5 • Category II – Evidence of child abuse or neglect, and there is high or intensive risk of future harm to the child. Child protective services required. • DHHS opens protective services case and provides necessary services • Perpetrator is listed on central registry • Category I (most severe) • Evidence of child abuse or neglect, AND 1 or more of following: • Petition is required under Child Protection Law. • Child is not safe and petition for removal is needed. • Case was a category II and family failed to voluntarily participate in services. • Violation of certain crimes.

22. Central Registry / Substantiated Case MCL 722.622 / PSM 711-4, 2 • “Substantiated” – cases that DHHS classifies as category I or II. • “Unsubstantiated” – cases that DHHS classifies as category III, IV, or V. • “Central Registry Case” - cases classified as category I or II. • DHHS POLICY – “central registry/substantiated case is any case that the department determines that a preponderance of evidence of child abuse /neglect occurred – AND any one of following: • The case is classified as Category I or II • The perpetrator is a nonparent adult who resides outside the child’s home • The perpetrator is a licensed foster parent • The perpetrator is an owner, operator, volunteer or employee of a licensed or registered child care organization • A CPS case that was investigated before July 1, 1999 and the disposition of the complaint was “substantiated.”

23. The Investigation—Case Classification (cont.) * MCL 722.628d • DHHS Required Response to Category I Cases per statute: • Petition—DHHS must submit petition to court for authorization • CPS Case—Open protective services case and provide necessary services • Central Registry—list the perpetrator on the central registry

24. The Investigation—Mandatory Petition for Jurisdiction (w/in 24 hours) MCL 722.637 • Statute REQUIRES filing of petition w/in 24 hours of DHHS determining child: • Severely physically injured • Sexually abused • Exposed or had contact with methamphetamine. • EXCEPTIONS – petition not required if (all): • Parent / Legal Guardian is not suspected perpetrator • Parent / LG did not neglect or fail to protect the child • Parent / LG does not have a historical record showing documented pattern of neglect or failing to protect the child • Child is safe in parent’s / LG’s care

25. The Investigation—Other Mandatory Petitions MCL 722.638 • DHHS must file petition in cases when the parent, guardian, custodian or other person 18+ resides in home, has abused child or sibling and included (any): • Abandonment • Criminal sexual conduct involving penetration (attempt/assault with intent) • Battering, torture, other severe physical abuse • Loss or serious impairment of organ / limb • Life threatening injury • Murder / attempted murder

26. The Investigation—Other Mandatory Petitions (cont.) MCL 722.638 • DHHS determines there is a risk of harm to child AND • Previous Involuntary Termination – parent’s rights to another child were terminated as result of child protective proceedings. OR • Previous Voluntary Termination - parent’s rights to another child were voluntarily terminated following initiation of child protective proceedings AND included abuse allegations on previous slide But See, IN RE GACH, 315 MICH APP 83 (2016) and 6/12/2018 amendments to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l)

27. Best Interests- Prior Terminations Cont’d • In re Gach, 315 Mich App 83 (2016) • Statute creates a presumption of unfitness when a respondent has been subjected to termination where no established neglect or abuse has been involved. • As such the statue violates basic due process due the parents. • Referenced Justice McCormack’s concurrence in a denial of leave in In re Jackson, 498 Mich 943 (2015). • Thus, subsection (3) (l) violates due process under state and federal constitutions absent a prior finding by clear and convincing evidence of parental abuse/neglect.

28. Mandatory Initial Petition for Termination of Parental Rights MCL 722.638(2) • Initial Petition for TPR Mandatory: • Mandatory petition per MCL 722.638(1) AND • Parent is suspected perpetrator or placed child at unreasonable risk of harm due to failure to take reasonable steps to eliminate that risk

29. Submitting the Petition to the Court • Required Contents for Petitions – MCL712A.11(3) / MCR 3.961(B) • Names / addresses of following: • child’s mother and father • parent, guardian, legal custodian of person who has custody of child • Nearest known relative of child, if no parent, guardian, or legal custodian can be found • Any court with prior continuing jurisdiction • Facts that constitute offense under the Juvenile Code • Citation of statutory ground for jurisdiction (712A.2(b)) • Child’s membership/eligibility for Indian tribe • Type of relief requested—must be specifically stated • Whether family division matter pending – see lang. in MCR 3.206(A)(4) • SEE AMENDMENT TO MCR 3.961(C) to comply with In re Sanders. • Petition may be amended at any stage (712A.11(6))

30. Abuse / Neglect Court Proceedings • Two Phases of Child Protective Proceedings: • Adjudicatory Phase: • * Possible pre-hearing removal (i.e., request to take child into custody) • Preliminary Inquiry / Hearing • Pretrial Hearing (if your court holds them) • Adjudication Trial or Plea • Dispositional Phase: • Initial Dispositional Hearing • Dispositional Review Hearing • * Emergency Removal Hearing (i.e., request to take child into custody post-disposition) • Permanency Planning Hearing • Termination of Parental Rights Hearing • Post-TPR Review Hearings

31. Preliminary Inquiry – MCR 3.962 • Only hold when petition DOES NOT contain a request for removal of the child and child is not in custody • * if petition contains request for removal – must hold preliminary hearing • Does not need to be on the record • Does not need to be in presence of the parties • COURT OPTIONS: • Deny authorization of petition • Refer matter for alternative services • Authorize filing of petition IF burden met

32. Taking Child into Protective Custody(before Preliminary Hearing) • Without Court Order (Law Enforcement) – MCL 712A.14a / MCR 3.963(A) • Police officer has reasonable grounds to believe BOTH: • Child is at a substantial risk of harm OR child is in surroundings that present an imminent risk of harm and • Immediate removal is necessary to protect child’s health and safety. Different standards for Indian child. See MCL 712B.7. • Police MUST immediately notify DHHS • DHHS MUST immediately contact on-call judge/referee to seek an ex parte order to take child into custody and place child pending the preliminary hearing

33. Taking Child into Protective Custody(before Preliminary Hearing Cont.) • Removal with Ex Parte Court Order – MCR 3.963(B) • Petition/Affidavit of facts required to submit request • Petition and court order authorizing removal can be submitted electronically • See SCAO Form JC 05b – Order to Take Child(ren) Into Protective Custody and Place • Court MUST inquire whether a relative is available to provide care pending preliminary hearing • DHHS Policy PSM 715-2 – Removal & Placement of Children • Ex Parte requests are for situations when it is after hours and there is immediate threatened harm • In all other situations, a preliminary hearing must be the venue for the court to make a determination regarding preliminary jurisdiction and/or placement.

34. Ex Parte Removal Order – Burden – MCR 3.963(B)(1) Burden to Issue Removal Order – Reasonable Cause to believe ALL: • Substantial risk of harm OR child is in surroundings that present an imminent risk of harm • Immediate removal from surroundings necessary to protect health and safety of child • Circumstances warrant issuing an order pending hearing • Consistent with circumstances, reasonable effortsmade to prevent or eliminate need for removal of child • No remedy other than protective custody is reasonably available to protect the child • Continuing to reside in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare

35. Duties of Party Taking Child Into Custody (DHHS) MCR 3.963(C) Duties include, but not limited to: • Ensure petition is prepared and submitted to the court • Immediately attempt to notify parent, guardian, or legal custodian • Inform parent, guardian, legal custodian of: • Date / Time / Location of preliminary hearing scheduled by court.

36. When a Parent is in Jail / Prison… • In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) • MCR 2.004 – “Incarcerated Parties” • Right to Participate • Incarcerated parent has a right to meaningful and adequate opportunity to participate in proceedings – In re Mason. • Court may not grant relief requested concerning child, if the incarcerated party has not been offered opportunity to participate in the proceedings. – MCR 2.004(F)

37. When a Parent is in Jail / Prison (cont)… • Duty to Engage Parent • “The state is not relieved of its duties to engage an absent parent merely because the parent is incarcerated.” • In re Mason at 152. • DHHS Policy – FOM 722-6, 5 • Must make reasonable efforts to identify and locate an incarcerated parent • Must engage parent in service plan regardless of how long parent will be incarcerated (if reunification is the goal) • Must make monthly contact with incarcerated parent • Identify the services / work opportunities available to parent • DHHS Policy – FOM 722-8C, 1 • Must engage incarcerated parent in development of Parent-Agency Treatment Plan

38. Burden for Authorizing Petition – MCL 712A.13a(2) Probable cause one or more allegations in the petition are true AND are within jurisdictional grounds under 712A.2(b) See, In re MU, 264 Mich App 270 (2005) (re:“criminality”)

39. Preliminary Hearing - MCR 3.965 • 24 Hour Rule – if child removed before the hearing, preliminary hearing must occur within 24 hours of removal excluding Sundays or holidays, unless adjourned for good cause • If not held w/in 24 hours, or adjourned – child MUST be released. • Notice of Hearing – Court must determine whether parent, guardian, or legal custodian was notified of the hearing • ** If child removed, notice must be given as soon as hearing is scheduled via in person, writing, on record, or phone. – MCR 3.920(D) • See, In re Mallett, #335758 (unpublished, 6/15/17) • Rules of Evidence DO NOT apply • ** COURT RULE UPDATE – March 25, 2015 • Sanders Cases – Preliminary Hearing / Inquiry MUST be held to determine what action to take on an Amended or Supplemental Petition. • See handout MCR 3.961(C)

40. Preliminary Hearing (cont.) –MCR 3.965 • Appointment of L-GAL for Child • Court MUST appoint L-GAL for child for all proceedings under MCL 712A.2(b) – MCL 712A.17c(7) and MCR 3.915(B)(2) • Appointment of LGAL cannot be waived (712A.17c(7)) • Serves while child is under jurisdiction, control, or supervision of court, MCI or other agency – unless discharged sooner. • Court must make sure L-GAL is present at Preliminary Hearing (MCR 3.915(B)(2)) • L-GAL Protocol revised, 8/20/2015

41. LGAL Duties / Powers (MCL 712A.17d) • “To serve as the independent representative for the child's best interests, and be entitled to full and active participation in all aspects of the litigation and access to all relevant information regarding the child” • If there is a conflict between LGAL and child, the court may appoint an attorney to represent child’s stated interests (MCR 3.915(b)(2)(b)) • conduct an independent investigation (e.g., talk to people) • meet with/observe child and assess needs/wishes before certain hearings. • Best practice is to visit the child’s placement at least onceto assess home safety. • monitor implementation of case service plans / court orders • receive training regarding child development (SCAO-CWS provides free training opportunities)

42. RECENT CASELAW- Appellate Counsel *** JAMES FARRIS, Next Friend of KEAGAN FARRIS V JOHN H. MCKAIG, III, #337366 (FOR PUBLICATION, Rel’d 5/17/18) –L-GAL is immune from civil liability*** In re Williams, # 336493 (unpublished, 7/25/2017)- Quality of appellate representation (mother) In re Covert, #336569 (unpublished, 7/20/17)- review of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See also, In re Mannor, #337115, 338051 (unpublished, 9/12/17)-allegations of ineffectiveness of mother’s trial counsel in Hick/Brown setting denied. In re Cruz, #337297,337298 (unpublished, 9/14/17)- parents have no standing to raise ineffectiveness of L-GAL citing In re HRC,286 Mich App 444 (2009). In re Mansour, #337219(unpublished, 9/14/2017)- failure to support issues on appeal waives them. See also, In re Decrosta, #337558 (unpublished, 10/12/2017) and In re W J Pfeiffle, #337526 (unpublished, 10/19/17) at fn.3 (failure to properly address errors below is abandonment of the issue).

43. Preliminary Hearing (cont.) – MCR 3.965 • Court must make Indian Child inquiry, proceed accordingly • Ensure respondents have copy of petition • Right to Counsel—advise parties of right to assistance of attorney at preliminary hearing AND all other hearings. • Right to Trial—advise parties of right to trial on the allegations • Inquire into identity of father if unknown (putative father hearing see MCR 3.921(D)) • Inquire into identity of relatives who might be able to provide care of child • ** Practice Tip: Attorneys / LGALs should inquire on the record!! Absent Parent Protocol: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/standards/APP.pdf

44. Preliminary Hearing (cont.) – MCR 3.965 • Court to determine if petition should be authorized (probable cause standard) • If petition authorized – Court Actions: • Placement—Determine placement of child(ren): • Release with Terms and Conditions • Out of Home Placement (legal standards must be met) • Place with DHHS for care and supervision • Emergency placement in unlicensed home allowed if that placement “adequate to safeguard child from risk of harm”. MCL 712A.13a(5) • Parenting Time—If removed, order frequent parenting time unless harmful to the child (psychological/counseling evaluation of child needed) • Relatives—Order Agency to identify, locate, consult with relatives to determine if placement with relative is in child’s best interests.

45. Preliminary Hearing (cont.) – MCR 3.965 • Court MUST advise parties – MCR 3.965(D)(1): • Service Plan—Agency is required to prepare Initial Service Plan • Plan must be filed with the court within 30 days of removal • Participation in the ISP is VOLUNTARY unless otherwise ordered by the court • Court will review / modify the plan upon motion of party • Case may be reviewed for concurrent planning

46. Out of Home Placement StandardsMCL 712A.13a(9) / MCR 3.965(C)(4) Court may order placement of child into foster only upon finding ALL of the following: • Substantial Risk of Harm—custody with parent presents a substantial risk of harm to the child’s life, physical health, or mental well-being. • No provision of service or other arrangement except removal is reasonably available to adequately safeguard the child from the substantial risk of harm. • Contrary to Welfare—continuing the child’s residence in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare. • Reasonable Efforts—consistent with the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate need for removal of child. (see exceptions in MCR 3.965(C)(4)) • Conditions of the child custody away from the parent are adequate to safeguard the child’s health and welfare.

47. Sibling Placement and Visitation DHHS Policy FOM 722-03 • Siblings entitled to be placed together • Agency must make reasonable efforts to place together • Must be placed together unless: • Exceptional needs require specialized program • Placement is harmful to one or more sibling • Size of sibling group makes single placement impractical • Visitation Plan—Sibling visitation plan required when not placed together: • Detailed plan of visits, phone calls, letters, etc. • Visits must occur at least monthly • Adoptive parents should be encouraged to continue contact with child’s siblings. • The visitation plan is to be recorded in the applicable service plan and Parent-Agency Treatment Plan and Service Agreement

48. Importance of Frequent Parenting Time • Michigan Parent-Child Visitation Task Force Report (2013) • Direct correlation between reunification and the frequency and quality of family visits • “Children who have regular visitation with their parents make better adjustments to care, are more likely to be reunified, and, when reunification is not possible, are more likely to be adopted by their foster parents” • “Children who are visited regularly by their biological parents have fewer behavior problems than do children who are not visited at all”

49. Parent-Child Visitation • Frequency of Parenting Time: • Statutory – @ least 1 x every 7 days. • DHHS Policy Age Related Requirements: • Age 0-5  at minimum 2x per week. • Age 6+  at minimum 1x per week. • Advocacy: literature and policy say frequency is one of the most important and best predictors of timely reunification. • Identify community resources for supervision. • Identify appropriate relatives for supervision. • PUSH, PUSH, PUSH!! • Advocacy: ensure parents are engaged in “parent” opportunities • Doctor’s appointments, school conferences, extra-curricular activities. • Are the parents receiving timely notice of opportunities? • Are parents receiving support services to engage in opportunity?

50. Parent-Child Visitation • Advocacy: Child’s Post-Visit Behavior Not Necessarily a Reflection on Parent. • What is being done to understand the behavior of child and reaction to parenting time?