Error Condition Re: LOCAL delivery error

[listproc@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Rejected message: sent to CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu by Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu follows.
Reason for rejection: message sent to the errors folder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu Fri Aug 21 11:01:27 1998
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
        by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10029
        for <owner-child-maltreatment-research-l@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
        by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01235
        for owner-child-maltreatment-research-l@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gemini.cc.umb.edu (gemini.cc.umb.edu [158.121.2.2])
        by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01180
        for <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199808211501.LAA01180@cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:02:42 EDT
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) 
From: Local delivery agent <Postmaster@umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
To: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: LOCAL delivery error
X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:"

Note: this message was generated automatically.

An error was detected while processing the enclosed message.  A list of
the affected recipients follows.  This list is in a special format that
allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect
addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes.

--> Error description:
Error-For:  cdse@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
Error-Code: 3
Error-Text: No such local user

Error-End:  1 error detected

------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu by gemini.cc.umb.edu (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:02:39 EDT
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA02905; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28680 for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA06005 for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from er6.rutgers.edu (er6.rutgers.edu [165.230.180.134]) by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA05991 for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from surbeck@localhost) by er6.rutgers.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA15468 for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <980820182901.ZM15466@er6.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:29:01 -0400
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Betty Surbeck" <surbeck@eden.rutgers.edu>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Drug Testing in Child Protection Cases
In-Reply-To: BRubin525@aol.com "Re: Drug Testing in Child Protection Cases" (Aug 20, 10:15am)
References: <8a576ea0.35dc2f82@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (4.0.1 13Jan97)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN

At our child welfare agency we do not do drug testing although the probation
department does and we often subpoena their records and use their results in
our judication proceedings. Our county D/A agency does not beleive they are
effective way to detect addiction and current use. This is probably a very
debatable issue. Our workers do not want to do drug screening and we do not
have the resources to do them effectively. There are so many different ways to
cheat that it is a diffcult area to proscribe. Parents routinely use their
children's urine or their children's friend urine and this can put the child in
a dfficult position.
        In fact because drug use is so high in our area most babies that are
born positive for drugs are not opened, it depends on what supports and
resources are available to ensure the child's safety. Once a case is opened
though we do use drug screens as indicators of progress before the child is
returned if available through probation or other sources. We also sometimes
write in the court recommendations that the parent is not to be the sole
caregivers for a chld while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.
This works when the parent beleives that we will know about it or have the
power to do something, ie remove a child. It does not work if the parent does
not want a child and parents have been know to refuse treatment because they
did not want the responsibility of a child, mostly adolescents. I would like to
hear maor on this topic. I think at least 80% of our client population have
drug problems that interfer with the care of their children.