Office and Division: Office of Children, Youth and Families, Division of Child Welfare

Number: OM-CW-2015-0004

Program Area: Permanency

Issue Date: August 12, 2015

Title: Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement

Office Director: Robert Werthwein

Memo Type: Operation

Division Director: Ann Rosales

Pertinent State/Federal Statute and/or State/Federal Rule: P.L. 113-183 Human Trafficking Act

Expiry Date: August 1, 2018

Outcome: Using Other Planned Living Arrangement (OPPLA) only for youth over 16 and only when it is in their best interest and all other options have been exhausted

Effective Date: August 1, 2015

Key Words: OPPLA, Older Youth, Prudent Parent, Best Interest, Compelling Reasons, URM Intended Recipients: This communication is being sent to all county human service directors and other child welfare stakeholders; including courts, attorneys, and Guardians ad Litem. Please forward pertinent information on to staff members as you deem necessary. Purpose: The purpose of this operations memorandum is to alert counties of updated and revised rules. The revision was necessary to comply with P.L. 113-183 Human Trafficking Act passed in September 2014, where it added additional requirements to utilize Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (OPPLA) as a plan. Therefore, rule was drafted and revised, through the SubPac Permanency Task Group, to align Volume 7 with Federal Law; the proposed rules were presented at State Board in May and June of 2015. Action: Each county human service department and judicial district should review Volume 7 at [7.301.24 Q. Requirement for Use of Other Permanent Planned Living Arrangements (OPPLA)] to become acquainted with new language and make any necessary policy and practice changes. Any youth under the age of 16 who has OPPLA as their court ordered goal, must have their goal reviewed and changed at their next permanency hearing. For any youth over 16 who currently has court ordered goal of OPPLA should have it reviewed for appropriateness. Background: In December of 2012, Volume 7 was revised to limit the use of OPPLA to those youth over the age of 16 or who were an Unaccompanied Refugee minor (URM). In September 2014, upon passage of P.L. 113-183, the Federal Law further limited the use of OPPLA and added additional requirements to be completed by the county and presented to the court. The following are new requirements to the rule: 

No youth under 16 can have OPPLA assigned as their plan,



If a county is exploring OPPLA as a plan for a youth, over 16, the county shall: o Review the plan through a Family Engagement meeting or an equivalent team that reviews the permanency needs of a youth (i.e. PRT or county permanency review team); o Reviews of an OPPLA plan need to be held every 6 months; o In order to request an OPPLA plan be adopted by the court, the county must demonstrate, through information discussed in the review team, that there are exceptional circumstances,

1

Division of Child Welfare Operation Memorandum: OM-CW-2015-0004 August 12, 2015 Page 2 of 2

o



present that prevent the youth from returning home, being adopted, being a part of a legal guardianship or permanent custody, such circumstances could be which can include severe mental or physical disabilities; and The following shall be considered and discussed during the review meeting and documented in the Family Service Plan:  Completion and documentation of intensive and on-going family finding efforts for kin and permanent connections;  Completion and documentation of a comprehensive assessment of the youth’s strengths and needs or an update of those if one was done prior; the assessment should include information about the youth’s capacity to live within a family setting;  The youth’s desired permanency outcome, what it is and how was the desired outcome discussed with the youth;  Discussion of the efforts made to achieve permanency through other goals and the barriers to achieving them; and  Discussion on how the plan of OPPLA is in the best interest of the youth.

The following information shall be submitted to the court when requesting OPPLA as the plan and should be provided in the court report at each court review: o A list of the barriers to permanency and compelling reasons why other goals are not achievable (examples of compelling reasons could include that it is an URM case, the youth has severe medical/behavioral disabilities, or it is the youth’s desires); o The youth’s desired permanency outcome, including how the youth was given the opportunity to share their desire and what information were they provided about their attendance or desire to attend the court hearing; o Detailed information about the intensive and on-going family finding efforts, including through social media (Accuriant, Clear and other family finding tools; and as of the date of the hearing unsuccessful attempts to find and place with relatives; and o Updates about how the youth is being supported and engaging in age or developmentally appropriate activities and social events.

Supersedes: Not applicable Contact: Gretchen Russo, RN, JD Permanency Manager Office of Children, Youth and Families Division of Child Welfare [email protected] (303)866-3197 Website: https://sites.google.com/a/state.co.us/cdhs-memo-series/home