Edit report so it reads smoother

  In addition to the allegations in thedependency petition, during the prior 30 days, the following occurred such that removing visit supervision ormonitoring would create a risk to the childs safety for the following reasons:

The Department is happy to acknowledge thatthe parents are starting to engage in court order services that the Departmenthas provided collateral. The parents have had only one conflict, and that waswith the caregivers, but all other visit reports document appropriate behavior,especially by Ms. Bradley. Ms. Bradley also reached out to the Departmentrequesting a “start over,” which is an excellent sign. 

Since the first of January, the parents havehad three Family Times that the caretakers canceled. One Family Time wascanceled by Ms. Bradley and was replaced by a zoom visit. The Departmentcanceled three Family Times due to safety concerns later addressed and resolvedin court. The second and fourth week of January Family Time was zoomed onlybecause the boys were placed in quarantine due to school COVID tracing. Therewas only a total of three in-person visits for January. There are a total offive Nasser Heng Jr. -only visit that was cut short or not attended by theparents, but the parents have not cut short or missed any William Carver Jrvisit of their accord. In February, the supervisor canceled the in-person visitand rescheduled it as a zoom later that night. The caregiver failed to get homein time to allow the children to visit. There was still an issue with thechildren getting back home from the in-person visits by 8:00 PM, but it wouldseem that this matter has been corrected.

The current safety concerns that need to beaddressed to move towards monitored visits are;

1. Recently both parents tested positive for Methamphetamine after denying usage during the entire case duration and still have not taken responsibility to date. No treatment or proper drug and alcohol assessment has been completed to address the parent’s behaviors and the parental deficiencies to move towards monitored visits.
2. Both parents have not engaged in domestic violence treatment which history has shown in their petition to put their children in danger. Parents have a significant account of DV violence which has impacted the safety of all family members. William Junior has been the target of physical violence by his brother, Nasser. Consequently, Ms. Bradley and Mr. Carver Hogan have allowed William Junior to hit Nasser while Nasser is required to stand still as retribution. Parents continue to accuse Nasser of attacking his brother on multiple recent visits, suggesting that he is putting goose eggs on his brother’s head. The parents have even involved grandparents in this delusion way of thinking. The Department and the caregivers had to take William Carver Jr multiple times to the doctors, and three different doctors reported no concerns. The children’s school, caregiver, and social worker have witnessed that William Carver Jr is the child that is demonstrating physical aggression, especially towards females. 
3. The result is the parents perceiving their child in extremely negative terms.
4. The parent avoids interacting with the Department to engage in services to address the safety concerns that brought the children into care. Instead, the parents have attempted in many ways to check the boxes of their court order services without providing factual data to the clinicians. 
5. Most concerning is that the parents express to the Department that they genuinely believe that they do not present any safety concerns and they are the victims that all parties are falsely accusing.