Should a meconium toxicology test positive for a controlled substance warrant an infant ?

â™¥â™¥Ritaâ™¥â™¥

Yes, absolutely. Anyone who would condemn an infant to a potential lifetime of effects by being exposed to a controlled substance while in utero....well, that parent needs a reality check.

I have a hard time believing she would have a positive meconium screen for Cocaine for second hand exposure.

FYI, this is a common excuse issued by women who have children taken into custody at birth for positive drug tests.....

It is not fair to the child.

ETA:

Tox tests in my locale are typically sent for further testing before a confirmation of child abuse/neglect by being born positive to drugs.

Of course, prescription drugs that are documented to be used by the mother.....USED not ABUSED....should be null.

Toxins are not tested for that I know of.....unless you count battery acid and lithium from meth manufacture to be toxins.

Plain and clear drugs abuse by the mother should be investigated while the infant is in temporary custody. Absolutely.

ETA2:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/1/107

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/6/650

ETA3:

I beg to differ on the point made below of "this being due to the drug being illegal......have you ever heard of a mother .......third trimester.....ibuprofen".

Have you ever seen a child born with cocaine exposure going through withdrawls?? How about a baby born TWEAKING?? Have you ever had the CHANCE to see a child go through their early years dealing with cocaine exposure and then when they launch in to the developmental areas where concrete learning and greater expectations are necessary in learning?? It is rough, unnecessary and totally avoidable. Last I heard Ibuprofen does not cause developmental and mental delay....it can cause bleeding issues and premature closure of a shunt in the heart, but not the same as cocaine exposure. Meth use causes holes in hearts of children born exposed to it.....

Comparing apples and oranges......

**Steps off of soap box** Rant subsides.....

Jennifer L

I think it would depend on how accurate the meconium toxicology test really is. (I don't know the answer to that.) I think that every drug tox test should be repeated and the results confirmed before any steps are taken. Labs certainly aren't infallible and when you're talking about something as serious as this, a double-check is certainly warranted.

But I do think that infants born with confirmed evidence of substance abuse do need to be placed in DCFS custody until either the subsance abuse issues and child safety issues are resolved, or it is determined that the environment is too unsafe and TPR is done.

Shelly P. Tofu, E.M.T.

Basically I agree with everything Jennifer L said..

ETA: What I mean is that absolutely an infant should not stay with a mother who actually DOES drugs, or did them during pregnancy..

However, one test is not sufficient. Further investigation is warranted.. as someone said... if there's concern, the hospital can refuse to discharge the infant until further tests and investigations are done..

wmayers99

Absolutely! A parent so out of control that she'd ingest such junk while pregnant is not fit to care for an infant!

C Wood

There are some drugs for which a child should probably be removed from the mother if she tested positive.

There are some things wher eyou can get false positives from other items, like poppy seeds, etc. and in those cases, DCFS followup should be done to ensure it's not a drug problem.

It depends on the drug, and the history of the mother. Many drug addicts are known to be drug addicts, and repeaters as well. I know of one such case and grandparents adopted the baby. This was the 3rd or 4th baby that had to be taken away from this same mother because she was a chronic drug addict and well known to be one.
cw

MamaKate

No. Not simply because of one positive test.

Removal should depend on WHAT the controlled substance was, among other factors.

Should someone lose their child if they were unknowingly given a substance during pregnancy?

Should a child be removed because of a false positive?

Should a child be removed for a prescription drug?

Should a child be removed if a mother ingested a toxin by accident?

Should a child be removed if s/he test positive and the mother does not?

No. A child should not be remanded to state custody over at positive result on a Merconium Tox. screen without further investigation. If there are concerns, the hospital can refuse release until further investigation has been completed. Even if there is some concern but not enough to warrant removal, CPS/DSS can always place the family in an in-home service plan.

I know I'm going to get lots of thumbs down but I happen to believe in at least reasonable if not absolute proof of danger to a child by his or her parent(s) before separating families - especially immediately following birth since it is a critical time for babies to begin bonding. Removal of a child is extreme and should only happen where there is reason to believe the child is in danger. Proof of such reasoning is needed to obtain a court order for removal. In the US, there is supposed to be burden of proof on the accuser. One positive on a non-specific test is not enough, IMO.

Wundt

I believe they always look into what the drug was, test the mother, and interview the mother before any action it taken. If it is indeed an illegal substance, then the child should be removed.

Consider, if you found out a woman was giving her infant meth, would you want the child removed? Of course. A mother taking meth while pregnant is basically doing the same thing.

Randy B

Sure it could. The larger question is could it result in permanent custody to DCFS or just till the matter was looked into further.

Our youngest daughter was placed in care while she was still in the hospital after birth because of positive tests. In the interviening months that custody was made permanent and she was eventually adopted by us once the follow up investigation revealed that the apprehension was warranted. If it had shown that it was not then she would have been returned to her birth parents.

Any indication of risk to a child is technically enough to have a child placed into custody. Some indications of risk are immediate till investigated further and some are more "monitor and then decide" situations. It all depends.

sizesmith

Absolutely. At least temporary custody, with mandates towards getting drug free, frequent drug testing at various times, and constant DCFS supervision of the child for years at the minimum.

Good people do drugs sometimes, it's a disease, just like diabetes, cancer or anything else. The difference is controlling the symptoms and getting help when needed. Drug addiction is harder on women, and placing a child is hard also. The main thing is, a woman in this case must make a choice. Either she needs to control her drug addiction, or she needs to get steralized, and never give birth again. Drugs are one of the main reasons kids end up in the foster system today, and it is a choice people make to do the drugs in the first place.

I think that also, if a man fails a drug test at work, or anywhere a drug test is performed, that his family and children should be supervised also. The penalities for ilicit drugs need to be higher, such as get caught, one must work on the highways picking up trash or something for longer periods of time, and make themselves productively punished.

kateiskate

No, not the results of just one test.

No test is going to be perfect and I'm sure false positives happen quite a bit.

While I don't think it warrants the infant being placed in DCFS custody right away, I would say that I think it should at the least warrant an investigation.

monkeykitty83

Yes, assuming drug use is definitely proven by multiple testing and authorities are sure this isn't a false positive, but the mother's parental rights should not be immediately terminated. Drug use is serious, and the child does need to be removed for his/her own safety, but the mother should also have a chance to make the decision to get clean.

If she refuses to get help or fails to get clean within a reasonable amount of time, TPR proceedings should begin.

Children do need to be removed from addicts, as that isn't a safe environment. If a safe relative placement can be found in the meantime, that would be ideal, but even if not, the child needs to be in protective care.

The mother should have the opportunity (not endless opportunities, but one chance) to turn her life around and parent. The child should be removed for safety reasons, but not TPRed unless the mother demonstrates no commitment to kicking the drug habit, or proves unable to within a reasonable timeframe.

kidmindi

Before the phone call I just got, I would have said that yes they should be removed..now I say NO not w/o investegating further.

My friend just called me from court and her teenaged son tested positive for meth. Both the boy and his mother claim he is clean. She called to ask me to research to see if over the couner nasal spray which he has been on, would cause a false positive (it can)

I am amazed at the things that can cause a false poisitve. Now i know in most cases as positive is a positive, but since some things CAN cause a false positive, I think removing the child should not be based on that alone

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm

read this one..scroll on down for the list of what common substances can cause false positive

http://www.keystosaferschools.com/drug_testing_specifics.htm

Serenity71

Was the child in danger, was there verbal or physical abuse happening...or the kid being offered the drugs. If none of this was present then why did they take away her child. I don't agree with people taking illegal drugs, nor them being in the same house as kids, but that doesn't give me a right to say they are unfit parents because they don't fit into my values.

If she took them during pregnancy... thats still child abuse since a child could be affect for life.

Camira B

1 positive meconium screening test? No. The same goes for urine drug screens. Studies have shown that depending on the lab, false positives are found anywhere from 4 to 50 % of the time. Not good at all. Personally, I feel like no action should be taken until the test is confirmed by Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Now, if the test is confirmed, that's a different story. Though, depending on the type of drug, I would prefer a family member gets the child and the mother gets visitation. I also think that some drugs (i.e. prescription drugs legally prescribed that the mother did not know were harmful) should be excused.

I think a lot of this has more to do with the fact that the drug is illegal rather than the baby's safety, unfortunately. I mean, have you ever heard of a woman getting a child taken away because she took ibuprofen during the last trimester, even though it's associated with an increased risk of heart problems? I haven't.

YoungKushLuvn

well, hmm...... either im reading it wrong, this is a joke, or you have words misplaced.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: