Analyzing whether the agency made reasonable efforts can be a powerful tool to ensure the child’s safety remains at the forefront of judicial decision making. To determine whether the agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal the judge must first decide on a safety plan that is sufficient, feasible, and sustainable (Module 4).

The question is: will an in- or out-of-home plan, or some combination, be the least intrusive approach to keep the child safe and still be sufficient? Consider the following two scenarios:

• (1)   If an in-home safety plan would be sufficient and the agency fails to (a) consider or (b) implement a plan then the agency has failed to provide reasonable efforts to prevent removal.
• (2)   If once a child is removed, the agency fails to obtain relevant safety-related information that would determine whether the child can be safely returned home, jeopardizing the child’s chances of timely return, then the court may find the agency failed to make reasonable efforts to finalize the reunification plan.

In both cases the court must determine whether the agency has conducted an ongoing assessment of the child’s safety as the central factor in its justification for removal or continued out-of-home placement. In other words, courts can use the reasonable efforts requirement to make sure the agency—and all parties—keep the question of the child’s safety at the center of the litigation.