# STRATEGY GUIDE — Scenario 12: "Two Homes" (Hard)

*Game documentation for a fictional simulation. This guide describes strategy inside the scenario only. It is general information about how the simulated system works — not legal advice for any real case.*

**Path check:** The route below was verified by walking `scenario-12.json` programmatically — every choice named here exists at the named node, and the sequence reaches the named ending. End cash on this route: $196 of $210.

## 1. The win

**"Ending — One Calendar."** State it honestly: this is a partial win, and the scenario says so. Mara and Jonah still live in two different homes at the end. What you win is the thing the case was actually about — sibling time converted from a favor into a scheduled, written, court-ordered part of both children's plans: Sundays, at the visit rooms, transport split between the two offices, in the order itself. It survives worker rotations and foster-household schedule changes in a way goodwill arrangements do not.

## 2. The route

1. **Two Addresses** — Choose *"Ask both workers, this week, when the children will see each other."* Changes: plants the first hidden item ("parent asked for joint visits in week one; no joint visit scheduled"). The ask being early is itself evidence later.
2. **The Same Hour** — Choose *"Call Mr. Delgado from the Hartleys' driveway and explain — today."* (cash −$6) Changes: the "did not attend" line in Jonah's log gains a margin note the same day, so the log stops reading as a simple failure.
3. **What the File Would Say** — Choose *"Sign the written request for the record — both children's logs, complete."* Changes: sets **recordsRequested**. This is the hinge of the whole scenario — everything after it is built from the agency's own handwriting.
4. **Two Logs, Side by Side** — Take the logs to the lawyer. Changes: adds the scenario's central hidden item — the agency's own logs record **zero joint sibling visits in seven weeks**. The absence is now provable, not arguable.
5. **One Letter, Two Names** — Choose *"Send it to both workers, both supervisors, and the court file — and keep your stamped copy."* (cash −$4) Changes: sets **writtenRequest**; breaks the circle in which each office attributes scheduling to the other; produces the coordination meeting.
6. **The Coordination Meeting** — Choose *"Confirm the plan back in writing."* (cash −$4) Changes: the standing Sunday visit and the transport split become a confirmed written plan, minuted in both files.
7. **Paper for the Review** — Choose *"Carry the full packet in — logs, letters, and the visit record."* Changes: routes to the strong hearing; the judge reads absence → request → meeting → visit as one sequence.
8. **The Review — One Schedule** — Choose *"Say yes — and ask that the schedule, the place, and the transport split be written into the order itself."* Changes: reaches **Ending — One Calendar**. A verbal assurance at this same node is the trap door to the lesser ending (see Traps).

## 3. Why this wins — the law as it is supposed to work

- **The case record is yours to ask for.** Under 55 Pa. Code § 3130.44(d), the record "shall be released upon request" to the case's subjects. In this scenario that right does specific work: it puts the *agency's own logs* — seven weeks with zero joint visits — in your hands, so the coordination request can cite the system's paper instead of your memory.
- **You are entitled to counsel.** Parents in dependency cases have the right to counsel, including appointed counsel (42 Pa.C.S. § 6337). In this scenario the lawyer's contribution is aim: one letter, addressed to everyone responsible at once, with the logs attached.
- **Courts order futures built from documented pasts.** No rule in the scenario's verified set schedules sibling visits by itself. The order at the end is the court acting on a record — a dated request, a meeting it produced, and a visit both logs confirm. The law supplied access and counsel; the written request supplied the pending item that agencies are organized to answer.

## 4. The traps

- **Handing the letter to one worker** (*One Letter, Two Names* / *A Letter From a Notebook* → "One Desk"). The request lives on a single desk as a favor. No meeting, no minutes, no item in Jonah's file at all. You end up in "We'll Look Into It" territory and the win is closed.
- **Working from your notebook instead of the logs** (*What the File Would Say*, second choice). Your letter still goes out, but everything it asserts rests on your word — the agency can answer a notebook with a shrug in a way it cannot answer its own logs. The meeting never happens on this path.
- **Accepting the verbal assurance at the strong hearing** (*The Review — One Schedule*, second choice). The judge is satisfied, the hearing ends warmly — and the arrangement stays unwritten. You land in **"Ending — Visits, Unwritten"**: real visits, no order, first casualty of the next staff rotation.
- **Declining to speak at the thin hearing** (*The Review — Two Files*, second choice). The judge expressly invites you to put sibling time on the record. Saying "they're working on it" closes the last door and reaches **"Ending — Two Separate Files."**

## 5. What no strategy controls

A different judge could leave the Sunday plan as an agency arrangement instead of writing it into the order. A different pair of foster households could make Sundays impossible and force a harder negotiation. Mr. Delgado rotates off the case mid-story no matter what you do — which workers you get, how fast a supervisor answers, and whether transport shows up are staffing and luck, not strategy. What the route controls is only — and exactly — whether the problem exists on paper, in both files, early enough for any of those people to act on it.