THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH http://www.courts.state.nh.us Court Name: Case Name: Case Number: (if known) CONTRARY TO THE WELFARE AND/OR REASONABLE EFFORTS ORDER CHINS DELINQUENT FOR USE WHEN: A child/minor is removed from the home or his/her removal is contemplated, State law requires the Court make findings as follows: CHINS (When and What Finding) A. B. DELINQUENT (When and What Finding) Initial Removal, Contrary to the Welfare Within 60 days of Removal, Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal Review Hearing, Reasonable Efforts to Finalize the Permanency Plan (NOTE: Finding required based on best practice) Initial Removal, Contrary to the Welfare Within 60 days of Removal, Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal Review Hearing, Reasonable Efforts to Finalize the Permanency Plan (NOTE: Finding required based on state law) Permanency Hearing, Reasonable Efforts to Finalize the Permanency Plan C. D. Permanency Hearing, Reasonable Efforts to Finalize the Permanency Plan On ,a hearing was held. FINDINGS OF FACTS The Court makes the following findings of fact: A. CONTRARY TO THE WELFARE FINDING, PURSUANT TO RSA 169-B:11-a, I AND RSA 169-D:10b, I (INITIAL REMOVAL) (Required unless a child/minor is released to a parent or legal guardian) Continuation in the home reasons: is is not contrary to the child's/minor's welfare for the following CHINS CASES: Unless a child is released to a parent or legal guardian, the Court shall determine, pursuant to RSA 169-D:10-b, whether continuation in the home is contrary to the child's welfare. The Court is required to make this determination in its first court ruling that sanctions, even temporarily, the removal of a child from the home (i.e. taken into temporary custody and removed from the home immediately thereafter). If the determination is not made, the child will be ineligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments for his/her entire stay in an out-of-home placement. NHJB-2438-DF (06/01/2010) Page 1 of 4 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Case Name: Case Number: CONTRARY TO THE WELFARE AND/OR REASONABLE EFFORTS ORDER DELINQUENT CASES: Unless a minor is released to a parent or legal guardian, the Court shall determine, pursuant to RSA 169-B:11-a, I, whether continuation in the home is contrary to the minor's welfare. If the "contrary to the welfare" determination is not made in the first court ruling, the minor will be ineligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments for his/her entire stay in an out-of-home placement. This is required even if the removal (arrest, custody, and placement or detention) is only temporary, provided it exceeds four (4) hours. The Court is required to make this determination in its first court ruling that sanctions, even temporarily, the removal of a minor from the home (i.e. arrested or taken into custody and placed with someone other than a parent or legal guardian). B. i. REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL, PURSUANT TO RSA 169-B:11-a, II AND RSA 169-D:10-b, II (WITHIN 60 DAYS OF REMOVAL) THE COURT FINDS (SELECT i, ii OR iii): Reasonable efforts were made were not made by DJJS or another agency to prevent the child's/minor's removal from the home of mother father legal guardian as follows: ii. Based on the safety considerations and circumstances of the child/minor and family at the time of removal, it is reasonable that no additional effort is required by DJJS to maintain the child/minor in the home of mother father legal guardian. Reasonable efforts were not required to be made by DJJS to prevent the child's/minor's removal from the home of mother father legal guardian because the parent/guardian has been convicted of a crime, pursuant to one of the following: RSA 630:1-a; 630:1-b; 630:2; 629:1; 629:2; 629:3; 631:1; 631:2; 632-A:2; 632-A:3. iii. State law requires that within 60 days of a child's/minor's removal from the home the Court make a "reasonable efforts" determination. If the determination is not made, the child/minor will be ineligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments for her/his entire stay in foster care. C. REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE THE PERMANENCY PLAN, PURSUANT TO RSA 169D:21, II , (REQUIRED FOR ALL REVIEW HEARINGS FOR CHINS AND DELINQUENTS) THE COURT FINDS (SELECT i AND ii ): i. The child has been in an out-of-home placement for months, since (Date). Reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect were made were not made by DJJS to make it possible for the child to return to the home. The reasonable efforts or deficiencies were as follows: ii. Reunification is and remains the permanency plan for the child in an out-of-home placement AND The concurrent plan is one of the following: Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)/Adoption Parental Surrender/Adoption; Guardianship with a Fit and Willing Relative Guardianship with Another Appropriate Party Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) ; ; or NHJB-2438-DF (06/01/2010) Page 2 of 4 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Case Name: Case Number: CONTRARY TO THE WELFARE AND/OR REASONABLE EFFORTS ORDER To date, the efforts made by DJJS with respect to the concurrent plan are as follows: State law requires that at a CHINS review hearing the court determine whether DJJS has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect. In most instances, the permanency plan that is in effect is reunification and when this is the plan, the Court shall consider whether services to the family have been accessible, available, and appropriate. D. REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE THE PERMANENCY PLAN, PURSUANT TO RSA 169B:31-a, III AND RSA 169-D:21-a, III (PERMANENCY HEARING) THE COURT FINDS (SELECT i AND also ii OR iii) : i. The child/minor has been in an out-of-home placement for months, since (Date). Reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect were made were not made by DJJS to make it possible for the child/minor to return to the home. The reasonable efforts or deficiencies were as follows: ii. Reunification is the permanency plan for the child/minor in an out-of-home placement AND The concurrent plan is: The following is required by DJJS to implement the permanency plan for the child/minor: iii. Reunification is no longer the permanency plan for the child/minor in an out-of-home placement AND the new permanency plan is one of the following: Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)/Adoption Guardianship with a Fit and Willin