Menu DFPS Policy Handbooks
- Handbook Search
-
- Revision Memos
- Most Recent Revisions
- Child Protective Services
- Adult Protective Services
- Child Care Investigations
- Statewide Intake
- Background Checks
- Faith-Based and Community Engagement
- Office of Internal Affairs
- Records Management Group
- Subpoena Policy
- Travel Claims and Services
- Asset Management
- Ethics Policy
- Title IV-E Training
- Title IV-E County
- Handbooks
- Child Protective Services
- CPS Community-Based Care
- Adult Protective Services
- Table of Contents
- 1000 Overview
- 2000 SWI & Case Assignment
- 3000 Scope & Eligibility
- 4000 HHSC or Other Settings
- 5000 Complex Cases
- 6000 Evidence
- 7000 Guardianship
- 8000 Investigations & Assessments
- 9000 Case Contacts
- 10000 Provide & Arrange Services
- 11000 Death of Client
- 12000 Legal Actions
- 13000 Case Closure
- 14000 Due Process & Release
- 15000 Confidentiality & Records
- Appendices
- Definitions
- Child Care Investigations
- Statewide Intake
- Background Checks
- Contracting Policies
- Faith-Based and Community Engagement
- Office of Internal Affairs
- Records Management Group
- Subpoena Policy
- Travel Claims and Services
- Asset Management
- Ethics Policy
- Title IV-E Handbooks
- Title IV-E Training
- Title IV-E County
- Helpful Links
- Statutes
- TAC Rules
- TAC Waivers for Foster Care Redesign
- DFPS Contracting Policies
- Email Updates
Appendix 2813-E: Child Under Age 10 Incorrectly Named as Alleged Perpetrator in Intake Allegation (Case Scenario)
CPS September 2012
In this scenario, Sue is the alleged victim, and Joe is an 8-year-old sibling. The reporter alleged that Joe was age 10 and had sexually abused Sue. The investigation caseworker determined that Joe was age 8, so he or she must:
• give the intake allegation that names Joe as the alleged perpetrator the disposition of Ruled-Out; and
• correct Joe’s age on the Person Detail window.
In this instance, the investigation caseworker could finalize the allegations as demonstrated by the example above.