Help me DFCS is tring to interfer in our life

[Proserpina]

Those three tests are NOT the easiest to pass and control quite frankly. I read it and it sounded like CPS had wanted a safety plan in place. Safety plans are voluntarily.

Those three are by far the easiest to manipulate. Ladyback is correct. There's really no comparison.

Urine: generally undetectable after 3-5 days which just so happens to coincide with the time between ingestion and the testing appointment a few days later.

Blood: 3-5 days

Saliva: Same or thereabouts.

Hair follicle? Now that's the tricky little piggy in the sty, isn't it?

There is another wee bit of info we could discuss, but let's see how Blue's questions are answered first.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually there is more than one conclusion to draw from that. Him using drugs 6 months ago doesn't matter. What matters is the CURRENT situation. And yeah, he can't control what his wife does. I just have to wonder why they even started talking to CPS.

What actually matters is how Georgia sees the issue. But fwiw, it takes about 15 days after ingestion for the hair to grow enough to be collected; no idea where 6 months came from.

 

[Ladyback1]

Those three tests are NOT the easiest to pass and control quite frankly. I read it and it sounded like CPS had wanted a safety plan in place. Safety plans are voluntarily.

I guess I work with a more criminal element than you.

However what I meant was: with those 3 tests an individual can abstain for a day or so, and will test "clean" or at least under the thresh hold limits to be considered clean.
And with urine (UA) there are ways to "pass" the test for THC with a little studying and preparation.

 

[single317dad]

Actually there is more than one conclusion to draw from that. Him using drugs 6 months ago doesn't matter. What matters is the CURRENT situation. And yeah, he can't control what his wife does. I just have to wonder why they even started talking to CPS.

Because Mom birthed an addicted baby, and the hospital reported the issue to CPS. Big mistake on mom's part. That gave CPS the in they needed and now OP is stuck dealing with them.

OP, there will be cooperation by you and mom in this case, or you won't get your kids back. If you can't afford a lawyer, you really don't have much other choice at this point.

 

[Just Blue]

I agree with OG.

OP should NEVER have talked to CPS without an attorney.

But, as he did, and he is willing to give up other "parts" of his body...Why not the flipping hair?????

 

[ajkroy]

What actually matters is how Georgia sees the issue. But fwiw, it takes about 15 days after ingestion for the hair to grow enough to be collected; no idea where 6 months came from.

Hair will show an history of drug usage for the the entire length of hair provided. If a patient has long hair, we can literally see a year of drug use (if there). Hair does not have to be collected from a patient's head; I have collected from armpits in the past. If a patient comes in for a drug test and they are completely hair-free (especially if it is noticeably recent), that is considered a refusal.

 

[ecmst12]

This is not "an addicted baby" and amphetamines are not narcotics. We don't even know if the baby tested positive, or if mom was taking street drugs or a legal prescription, or why she was drug tested in the first place.

 

[Proserpina]

Hair will show an history of drug usage for the the entire length of hair provided.

A veritable smorgasbord, to be sure.

If a patient has long hair, we can literally see a year of drug use (if there). Hair does not have to be collected from a patient's head; I have collected from armpits in the past.

No dispute there.

If a patient comes in for a drug test and they are completely hair-free (especially if it is noticeably recent), that is considered a refusal.

Yup.

The discussion snuck into the thread because of Blue's question, "If he'll give blood...why not the hair sample?" Perfectly valid question. I was waiting for the OP to post back.

Since he didn't...

Perhaps OP knows that blood, urine and saliva will generally test clean after about 5 days, give or take. It's that pesky hair follicle. That little devil can land you in trouble for a much longer period of time after your last usage.

 

[ajkroy]

A veritable smorgasbord, to be sure.



No dispute there.




Yup.

The discussion snuck into the thread because of Blue's question, "If he'll give blood...why not the hair sample?" Perfectly valid question. I was waiting for the OP to post back.

Since he didn't...

Perhaps OP knows that blood, urine and saliva will generally test clean after about 5 days, give or take. It's that pesky hair follicle. That little devil can land you in trouble for a much longer period of time after your last usage.

Proserpina, I see now. I misread the 6 month part of the question and thought it was leading to the amount of drug usage we can see (depending on length of hair). Sorry about that and glad to see we are on the same page. I also think Blue's question is valid -- and maybe that is why the OP isn't coming back to answer. The hair test, as has been pointed out, is also the most difficult to mask or cheat results.

I personally think that CPS can be too invasive, but maybe they are getting it right in this case.

 

[Proserpina]

Proserpina, I see now. I misread the 6 month part of the question and thought it was leading to the amount of drug usage we can see (depending on length of hair). Sorry about that and glad to see we are on the same page. I also think Blue's question is valid -- and maybe that is why the OP isn't coming back to answer. The hair test, as has been pointed out, is also the most difficult to mask or cheat results.

I personally think that CPS can be too invasive, but maybe they are getting it right in this case.

Agreed and triple agreed.

Unfortunately

 

[Ohiogal]

Proserpina, I see now. I misread the 6 month part of the question and thought it was leading to the amount of drug usage we can see (depending on length of hair). Sorry about that and glad to see we are on the same page. I also think Blue's question is valid -- and maybe that is why the OP isn't coming back to answer. The hair test, as has been pointed out, is also the most difficult to mask or cheat results.

I personally think that CPS can be too invasive, but maybe they are getting it right in this case.

Actually the toenail test is the MOST difficult.

 

[Just Blue]

Actually the toenail test is the MOST difficult.

Interesting that OP has not been back to answer any of the relivent questions asked by this forum. Wonder why??

 

[RRevak]

PS: They are not violating your rights. They are trying to protect a defenseless and helpless infant.

Actually, that part depends a lot on the circumstances. I've read enough to know that many hospitals cannot just arbitrarily drug test either the infant or the mother UNLESS there are enough sufficient reasons for them to be LEGITIMATELY concerned. We don't know 100% the circumstances surrounding why the baby was tested so we can't say for certain OP or his wifes rights weren't violated. That would take more information from OP who so far seems to be MIA.

And on the testing matter: If ANY child protective services EVER attempted ANYTHING with me WITHOUT a warrant I would be telling them to pound sand so fast their heads would spin! They wouldn't even get a word other than "take it to a judge" from me. Without a warrant OP has NO reason to cooperate with child services and ANY attorney worth their salt would say the same. Wondering why OP isn't willing to give hair is also pretty telling. Maybe OP smokes pot? Maybe OP used drugs at one point but not at the current time? Maybe OP also knows that getting a hair test shows drug use FAR longer than a standard and he doesn't want to be judged for things he did then but not necessarily now? Who knows. But i'm sorry to agree with OP but asking for hair is nonsense and to me seems like an invasive fishing expedition on the part of child services. For the wife? That is more of a different story considering she has already had run ins with child services. OP needs to do NOTHING without an attorney asap. Protective services likes to say they "help" but many times they just end up stomping on the rights of people who are just too uneducated to know better.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, that part depends a lot on the circumstances. I've read enough to know that many hospitals cannot just arbitrarily drug test either the infant or the mother UNLESS there are enough sufficient reasons for them to be LEGITIMATELY concerned. We don't know 100% the circumstances surrounding why the baby was tested so we can't say for certain OP or his wifes rights weren't violated. That would take more information from OP who so far seems to be MIA.

Mom tested positive, twice - two different pregnancies. That appears to be legally acceptable.


(I'm not commenting on whether or not it's acceptable or morally repugnant)

 

[RRevak]

Mom tested positive, twice - two different pregnancies. That appears to be legally acceptable.


(I'm not commenting on whether or not it's acceptable or morally repugnant)

I admit my hatred of child protective services can often times cloud my judgement as far as whether they are acting on something legit or not so I apologize if I missed enough details to have my rant be overstepping. The issue is though that we don't know all the details of the situation so we really and honestly can't advise Op in any direction until we have the details we need to be able to understand the situation as a whole. What happened the first time? What happened this time to trigger a testing of the infant? Are there orders in place by protective services to monitor mom? Are there orders in place to monitor both mom and dad? OP really needs to come back but even if he does, I still feel his situation might be beyond the scope of us internet peeps

BUT: Because we don't know the circumstances of both testings, we still don't actually know whether they were "legally acceptable" or not. Just because she tested positive doesn't mean the means by which she was tested were actually legal. As far as morals are concerned...well, we're a legal site so we aren't really in positions to offer "moral" advice now are we . But like you, i'm sure I have plenty of my own "moral" advice to offer. Seriously, who uses while PREGNANT!? I'm always at a loss for words on that one.....