Unreliable Drug Test Results in Custody Cases

The Forensic Fluids Laboratory in Michigan has been supplying drug test results to courts all over the United States. If an alleged positive occurs that shouldn't have, this information may be useful to you. I took the time to track down many disgruntled parents complaining about the lab results provided by Forensic Fluids and collected many contradicting lab reports. Make sure to click on the blue links in this article to see the evidence gathered.

In the first link you'll see M.K.’s Forensic Fluids Lab report which shows positive results for THC and cocaine. However M.K.’s hair follicle drug test returned negative results on all panels. This is D.R.’s Forensic Fluids Lab report which shows a positive result for amphetamine and methamphetamine. However D.R.’s hair follicle drug test returned negative results on all panels.

B.O.’s Forensic Fluids Lab reports are very contradicting. In this report. Forensic Fluids showed a negative result on all panels. B.O.'s prescription medication buprenorphine is not detected on many of her lab tests from Forensic Fluids Laboratory. However the medication is consistently detected on drug tests taken the same day at a different lab as shown on this report. Another report from Forensic Fluids Laboratory shows a positive result for cocaine and a lab report from a drug test taken the same day by a different lab shows a negative result for cocaine. To further confirm Forensic Fluids unreliable results, B.O. also had a hair follicle test done which returned negative results on all panels.

What do these parents have in common? Children's services cases are the reason these parents have had to submit oral fluid samples to the Forensic Fluids Laboratory. Two out of the three shown in this article have had children removed from their custody. Keep in mind there are many more test results like this that have been collected. Why are these test results being used in Ohio's juvenile court proceedings? Because the Supreme Court of the United States granted our state court judges a gatekeeper function. This means that the judges overseeing our juvenile court cases can choose what scientific evidence is admissible and what isn't.

This duty stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which mandated that judges ensure any scientific testimony or evidence is both relevant and reliable. This role was further affirmed and clarified in subsequent cases, including General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. The case General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), clarified that appellate courts should defer to trial judges' decisions regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, thereby reinforcing the gatekeeper role of trial judges. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999),The Supreme Court extended the Daubert gatekeeping role to all expert testimony, not just scientific evidence, ensuring that judges scrutinize the reliability of technical and other specialized knowledge as well.

In footnote 9 of the Daubert decision, the Court explained the difference between validity and reliability. Although the distinction between validity and reliability may be subtle, each concept is distinct. Validity refers to whether the test is accurate? (Does it work correctly?) For example, if you use a ruler to measure a one inch object, does it actually measure 1 inch as 1 inch? Reliability refers to whether the results are consistant. In other words, is the test dependable? (Does it give the same results every time?) For example, if you use the ruler to measure the same object multiple times, does it always say the object is 1 inch?

The Court wanted to make sure that any scientific evidence used in court not only works correctly (valid) but also works the same way every time (reliable). The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the Daubert standard in Miller v. Bike Athletic Co. (1998). By adopting the Daubert standard, the Ohio Supreme Court affirms that judges in juvenile court have the responsibility to assess the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence such as drug test results before admitting it into proceedings. This means the methodology used in drug testing must be valid, accurately detecting the presence of drugs, and reliable, consistently producing the same results.

For some reason our state courts rely heavily on the results provided by this laboratory and have been separating families due to the labs unreliable results. Efforts to report this lab have been unsuccessful. Our courts truly need to reassess the use of testing protocols used when forcing the separation of parent and child.

Photo byS. TsuchiyaonUnsplash