Benchcard QRTP Elgibility Scenario = Court Approves/Orders QRTP | IA does NOT Recommend QRTP

Instruction to judge: * • Make specific findings to deviate from the assessment required in 19-1-115 (4)(h). * • Make findings regarding why an alternative other than QRTP does not meet the needs of the child/youth. * • Lack of available placements cannot be a reason. * • Make required findings: * • QRTP provides the most effective appropriate level of care for the child/youth/juvenile in the least restrictive environment. • Consistent with the permanency plan (if set). • Consistent with the child/youth/juvenile’s short- and long-term goals. • Set QRTP review prior to discharge date or no longer than 90 days, see 19-1-115(4)(g)

*Also see Tags "candidate for foster care"

These are the sum of the laws, the specific clauses, the county references claiming provides the legal justification for our reduction in benefits and my daughter to no longer be counted as eligible. They are all in CCR "Rule Vol. 4". I comment here on each one as well as declaring the applicable clauses in Rule Vol. 4 which were not considered, specifically relevant, and mandated to be applied.

The County's list fails to reference the following: 4.206 CATEGORIES OF ELIGIBILITY, A, C.1.a. 1) & 2) https://hyp.is/XoKIEsJLEe2cl-8Ogls3gw/www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=10492&fileName=10%20CCR%202506-1

4.505.4 Verification of Household Composition, A. "household's statement regarding food purchasing and preparation shall generally be accepted because of the difficulty of verifying such arrangements" https://hyp.is/oFev8MJMEe2rvnuw-5D9ZQ/www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=10492&fileName=10%20CCR%202506-1

Regarding each CCR that was referenced by the County: 4.000.1 - is only a list of program definitions that are not in dispute 4.304.B.1&2 - these clauses are not in dispute as this only lists additional people who should be counted "in household" beyond the usual nuclear household (i.e. children and their legal permanent caretakers [parents]) 4.304.1.A - not applicable to this case as my daughter is not for this moment in question living and in the physical possession of "natural parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent," 4.504.6.D.4, 5, & 6; 4.604.B - not in dispute, I'm not disputing the County's data sources used for verification 4.604.G.1, 4.606.B.1.b, 4.606.B.2.b - these clauses just direct what to do IF there is a change in household composition. I'm not disputing what should be done "IF". What I'm disputing is that a change in Household Composition did/has not occurred (per laws: CRS 26.2.706(1)(A5)(II); CCR 2503-6.E.1-4, F, & G.1

This is the county's singular argument, and provided 93 pages of evidence to illustrate the facts of our life situation, namely that my daughter is in "temporary custody" by DHS and not currently in my physical custody. However, my case and argument has nothing to do with arguing those facts. I generally concede those facts as true and don't dispute them. What I dispute is that those facts, per the eligibility rules of the benefit programs, do not disqualify us from the programs, and further, specifically provide language that speaks to our life situation to make sure it is clear we are to be declared eligible and my daughter is not to be disqualified on the basis of "not living in home and not in the dependent care of her Head of Household [me]"

I am the obvious "Head of Household" between my daughter and myself as she is my biological daughter, under 18, whom I am the sole caretaker, and whom my parental rights have not been terminated. And, the open DHS child welfare case is still pre-adjudication, meaning DHS has not proven grounds for their claimed allegations they used to defend taking temporary custody, and which I strongly contest and know are not founded. Point being I have never stopped for one day, up through current day, taking daily responsibility for and being the ultimate manager of my daughter's care for all needs, that DHS's involvement was not at my doing or consent, and DHS should and I expect DHS to remove themselves immediately from infringing any further in our family.

This declares guidance to the county to generally accept a families declaration of the household composition (i.e. should generally accept my claim that my daughter is qualified 'living in home' without excessive scrutiny and as long as I can provide a reasonable basis and evidence for it) due to the often very complex nature of living circumstances.

Additionally, our family qualifies under this qualifier as well. We do receive service from the Family Preservation Program (enacted in 2018 out of the U.S. Family First Prevention Services Act, which includes services all families with children who have been or are at risk of being placed out-of-home). My daughter is in fact residing in a QRTP facility (Chase House) awaiting the mandated Independent Assessment to determine medical and related needs, both being specific fundamental creations of the FFPSA.

This rule declares that our eligibility for SNAP, and therefore determination of whether my daughter is qualified as "living in home", is met based on the fact that we qualify for the TANF (Colorado Works) Program. Said another way, if my daughter is qualified as "living in home" by TANF rules (CCR 9 2503-6, C.R.S. 26-2-706); which is the only section in the CCRs & CRSs where "living in home" is defined in Colorado Law), she qualifies as eligible for SNAP.

(cont'd to next)

(cont'd to next)

Another piece to the "what can we do with eligibility traces" puzzle for Deep RL.

Question: What happened to Eligibility Traces in the Deep RL era? This paper highlights some of the reasons they are not used widely and proposes a way they could still be effective.

Question: What happened to Eligibility Traces in the Deep RL era? This paper highlights some of the reasons they are not used widely and proposes a way they could still be effective.

Omicron and children: Pediatric hospitals in parts of U.S. filling fast. (n.d.). Washington Post. Retrieved December 28, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/24/omicron-children-hospitalizations-us/

Mills, M. C., & Rüttenauer, T. (2021). The effect of mandatory COVID-19 certificates on vaccine uptake: Synthetic-control modelling of six countries. The Lancet Public Health, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00273-5

Lubell, M. (2021, December 9). Doctors weigh COVID-19 impact on children as vaccine drives ramp up. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/doctors-weigh-covid-19-impact-children-vaccine-drives-ramp-up-2021-12-09/

the Guardian. ‘Israel Says 600 Children given Covid Jab Had No Serious Side-Effects’, 10 March 2021. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/10/israel-says-600-children-given-covid-jab-had-no-serious-side-effects.

FTS News Desk (2020) Blue J Launches Free Tools to Help Determine COVID-19 Relief Eligibility. Global FinTech Series. Retrieved from: https://globalfintechseries.com/blue-j-launches-free-tools-to-help-determine-covid-19-relief-eligibility/

Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine. (2020, November 26). Nhs.Uk. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/