Re: Drug Testing in Child Protection Cases

["Randall Webber" <rwebber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've been monitoring the discussion of drug-testing & child custody. 
Different areas/states have their own guidelines, but one theme that keeps
coming up is a policy that says, in essence, that if a mother is ordered by
the court to refrain from alcohol or other drug use, a dirty urine (or
whatever bodily fluid is being tested) = loss of child/jail/some other
penalty.  

Project SAFE is a joint venture between the Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services and the Illinois Department of Human Services-Office of
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse that provides substance abuse treatment and
other services to addicted women with histories of abusing and/or
neglecting their children.  We've been working with this project for 12
years now, and have developed a profile of the typical SAFE client which
may sound familiar to many of you:

-  involvement with toxic substances (AOD) and toxic relationships (e.g.,
addicted, violent men)
-  involvement with multiple helping agencies and resultant chaos of
appointments, hearing, tasks, etc.
-  personal history of particularly traumatic childhood sexual abuse
-  lack of role models for effective parenting (lack includes own
parents/mother)
-  psychiatric diagnosis, most often depression, PTSD, personality disorder
-  poverty
-  lack of education/job skills
-  hopelessness/passivity/low self esteem

(Visit our web site to learn more about Project SAFE-no charge, no cookies)


Let's say that this woman has been drinking and getting high virtually
every day for years, and does not lack pain in her life.  She will not "hit
bottom" because she lives on the bottom.  What she lacks is hope.  Through
the hard work of the Project SAFE staff and new relationships with women
who have been where she is and have "made it", she has remained abstinent
for 6 months.  Then she has to go to court for an old beef, so she panics
and gets high.  The next day she is called for a drug test.

Should the court or CPS inflict a severe penalty on her for this
slip/relapse?  What about the fact that for the first time since she was a
child, she has stayed straight for a substantial period of time?  Of course
she has to expect some kind of response from courts/CPS, but what message
is being sent to her if the system comes down on her like a ton of bricks? 
That even if you transform your life (at least for 6 months), you go to
jail the minute you slip?  If so, what's the point of trying?  After all,
we all make mistakes, and her ability to stay straight for 6 months is
nothing short of a miracle.

Should not each person be assessed as an individual, and "success" measured
individually as well?  I've been in the chemical dependency field for 28
years now, and have encountered very, very few clients who don't relapse at
least once during chemical dependency treatment.  A dirty urine means
something is wrong, but does it have to mean that all the progress our
typical client had made is, at least in her mind, wiped out?  

Sorry for rambling so.

-Randy Webber

J. Randall Webber, M.P.H. <rwebber@chestnut.org>
Director of Training and Publications
Lighthouse Institute
Chestnut Health Systems
720 W. Chestnut St
Bloomington, IL  67101
309/827-6026    309/829-4661 (fax)
http://www.chestnut.org

----------
> From: FrampD@aol.com
> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers  
<CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject: Re: Drug Testing in Child Protection Cases
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 11:59 AM
> 
>      I guess that this is a true test of whether a community can operate
in
> the area of child protection as a multi-disciplinary team.  South
Carolina law
> has clearly identified substance abuse as a major risk factor for
children and
> families; most of the service providers in our treatment or placement
plans
> are either state agencies or under state contracts; we have had many
"round
> tables" about information sharing and, yet, we still have some friction
points
> in our delivery of services for the chemically dependent.  It is
important for
> us to recognize that protective services workers are dependent on the
service
> provider for information, and that substance abuse treatment records are
> subject to the highest level of confidentiality under federal law.  I
would be
> interested in how other jurisdictions solve this inter-agency conflict.  
>      In Charleston, when we present a treatment/placement plan to the
Court in
> cases involving substance abuse, we always ask the Court to order the
> following:
> 1.     Restrain the addicted person from the use of alcohol, any illegal
> substance, or any prescription medication not in strict compliance with
the
> prescription;
> 2.     Allow the social services department or the placement relative to
> refuse or terminate visitation if the addicted person shows up under the
> influence;
> 3.     Require the addicted person to undergo an assessment for substance
> abuse treatment (we follow the guidelines for treatment promulgated and
> available from the American Society of Addictive Medicine) and to follow
all
> recommended treatment to successful completion, including aftercare and
> attendance at support groups such as AA or NA;
> 4.    Require the addicted person to undergo random chemical testing for
the
> presence of drugs or alcohol, submitting to the test within 12 hours of
the
> request, with DSS, the Guardian, the Court, and any other service
provider
> having the ability to request a drug screen.  We do not specify
urinalysis and
> use a variety of tests, including Breathalyzer, Datamaster, urinalysis,
and
> hair.
> 5.     If the children are of appropriate age, we refer them to a support
> group for children of addicted families (ALATEEN, ALATOT, etc.)
> 
>        If the addicted person flunks any part of this treatment plan,
they go
> to jail for a brief period of time for contempt of court.  The second
time,
> they can be jailed for up to a year.