DOCS Parents caught out by drug test

[grace]

MORE than 80 parents were found taking drugs such as cocaine, ice and cannabis during a trial by DOCS to determine if children should be reunited with their families.

 

At least half of all mothers and fathers targeted in the Parental Drug Test had taken marijuana, according to DOCS documents.

 

The trial, conducted between 2007 and 2008, also found that many parents were taking multiple drugs with many addicted to methamphetamines and heroin.

 

The figures come as the State Government is rolling out a new parental drug testing policy.

 

The policy, based around the success of the trial, will test parents who are suspected of having a drug problem or who have been referred for testing by the Family Courts.

 

Of the families tested, 56 were to see if a child should be returned to the parent, while 28 were cases that involved removing the child.

 

"From a child protection perspective we have to make sure there's evidence for courts to restore a child to their parents," Clinical Issues Unit director Tahn O'Brien said.

 

"A very small percentage of these cases involved pregnant women."

 

Parents are subjected to testing at least three times a week for a minimum of two months.

 

They are also forced into drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs.

 

In one case, a 24-year-old pregnant woman was tested and heroin was detected. The baby was placed in foster care at birth.

 

Community Services Minister Linda Burney said one in five child protection reports to the Helpline involved drug and alcohol abuse.

 

"Testing is compulsory when a decision is being made about returning a child to the care of a parent identified as a serious and persistent drug user," she said.

 

Author: Kate Sikora

Date: 3 August 2010

Source: Daily Telegraph

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-...i-1225900242872

[Radic]

greetnz sista grace

 

MORE than 80 parents were found taking drugs such as cocaine, ice and cannabis

huh??????????????

what bout about alcohol, nicotine and caffeine arnt they dangerous drugs of addiction toooooo

At least half of all mothers and fathers targeted in the Parental Drug Test had taken marijuana

dats arrrr 40+

 

56 were to see if a child should be returned to the parent,

so most cannabis consumers were included what bout medicinal users?????????

imho

cannabis helps parents become better at parenting

while 28 were cases that involved removing the child.

suss

imho

last resort

strictly for violence and abuse

a 24-year-old pregnant woman was tested and heroin was detected. The baby was placed in foster care at birth.

that sux

imho

is the failure of docs to give her the support she soooo desperately needed to fully care for her baby

hang your heads in shame docs

one in five child protection reports to the Helpline involved drug and alcohol abuse.

they are calling for support to help them

steeling the children does not help

they need support not criminalisation

this is a health issue

i know dat

you know dat

even the dog that piss pon the wall of babylon knows dat

for all children

please,,,,,,,,,

and especially

for the children of all drug users

legalize all drugs

 

irey guidance

[grace]

The Supreme Court of New South Wales made a ruling on a case involving DOCS removing children because the parents used cannabis. Link to the forum topic.

 

https://cannabis.community.forums.ozstoners...munity+services

 

Removal of kids 'abuse by officials, Sydney: The Australian

 

TWO healthy children who had never been abused or neglected by their parents were forced into foster care last September after it was found the couple had smoked cannabis.

 

The two children -- a girl, aged two, and her baby brother -- were removed from their home by police officers after two case workers from the NSW Department of Community Services had reported their concerns over the parents' drug use.

 

But three months later, NSW Supreme Court judge George Palmer ordered that the children be returned to their parents, whom a psychologist had found to be "loving, sensitive and ... well able to provide for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of their infant children".

 

Justice Palmer described the actions of the DOCS workers as a "serious abuse" of their position, and questioned whether it was the policy of the department "that any parent who uses cannabis, no matter how infrequently, is for that reason alone unfit to care for a child".

 

If so, "that view should be made public, so there may be public debate about it", the judge said. "There was no evidence that their cannabis use in itself posed any direct risk of harm to the children."

The case began in April 2007, when the mother checked into hospital, believing she was in premature labour with her daughter. She checked herself out, apparently with a cannula still in her arm.

 

As required by law, the hospital reported this incident to DOCS. Two months later, the mother returned to hospital to give birth to a baby girl.

 

Nine months later, DOCS filed a "care plan" for the little girl, saying the parents would have to submit to urine testing if they wanted to keep custody of their child.

 

Justice Palmer said the requirement for the parents to remain "drug-free" or face losing their children, was "questionable". "I would describe the parents' use of cannabis as recreational rather than addictive or dependent," he said.

 

The parents agreed to provide urine samples to DOCS until June last year.

 

DOCS commenced legal proceedings in September.

 

The judge said there was "no evidence whatsoever that the department had any concerns at this time as to the wellbeing or safety of the children".

 

In court, DOCS said it wanted the parents to provide random urine samples, accept random home visits, take part in counselling, and put their baby inchildcare at least two days aweek.

 

Justice Palmer said these "heavy-handed" demands were intended "to be a goad and an insult" to parents who were "taking good care of their children".

 

The parents were angry, but agreed to the conditions. Last September, after the woman had given birth to the baby boy, the couple missed a meeting with DOCS officers, who promptly visited their home.

 

According to a DOCS report of the incident, the mother was "making a hot drink" when officers arrived.

 

"Her hair was messy and knotted. She appeared to have lost a lot of weight. Her clothes were hanging off her and her bones were protruding."

 

The DOCS officer said to the woman: "You look like you've lost a lot of weight."

 

The mother replied: "You look like you've put on weight."

 

Justice Palmer said "the parents were entitled to be angry" because they had been threatened with the loss of their children, for no apparent reason.

 

Yet DOCS officers returned to the house with police just hours after the mother had abused the DOCS worker, and took the children.

 

A report by Sydney psychologist Lizabeth Tong praises the parents.

 

It describes the mother as "a tall, attractive, willowy woman" who was "neatly dressed, well groomed and articulate".

 

The father was "candid, forthright and engaging ... he appeared appropriately protective of his partner", Dr Tong wrote.

 

Given the lack of evidence of any parental abuse, Justice Palmer said the act of removing the children from the family home constituted "a serious abuse by certain DOCS officers".

 

NSW Community Services Minister Linda Burney yesterday refused to directly say whether cannabis use would render a parent unfit to care for a child.

 

Ms Burney released a statement, saying: "If caseworkers believe the safety of a child is at risk because their parents' ability to care for them is severely affected by drug use or alcohol, then they will take action."

 

Author: Caroline Overington

Date: 21 January 2009

Source: The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...63-2702,00.html

[Radic]

"If caseworkers believe the safety of a child is at risk because their parents' ability to care for them is severely affected by drug use or alcohol, then they will take action."

not good nuff

"a serious abuse (of power) by certain DOCS officers"

because

what is "severely affected by drug use"

is for the DOCS officers to decide in the moment

that sux

shame docs hang your head in shame

[sativaindicaruderalis]

These peoples jobs thrive on fear.

 

Common people wake up. Sick of living in hell waiting for the rest of you to wake up.

[mull-ray]

DOCS are notorious for their incompetence and have left children in many cases in situations where they eventually die. Useless fuckers ought to be all sacked, and a new Department with new competent employees should be started.

 

"shame docs hang your head in shame" (If they had any humanity left in them they would have been hanging their heads in shame long before this.)

 

Sack em!

[Ozzy420]

This is something i could ramble on about for a long time, my mum has worked in that field for over 20 years and has just retired and what she has told me a good part of the time it is kids them self just out of school that have no life skills that want to make a name for them self as do gooders saving all these so called kids that are in danger when there in no danger at all and destroy familys but in saying that there some older DOCS workers that think they know it all and think it is there mission to save the world rather than see the big pitcher...

[cybergenesis]

This is highly alarming.

 

I don't want to get into specific details, but 5 years ago I lost 2 children that were like my own kids to my because of TOTALLY FALSE accusations against me by Families SA (child protection in South Australia).

 

Some of the older kids still see me, even though Families SA sends the police around any time they know they are down here (thankfully they don't usually find out).

 

However if Families SA found out I smoked pot, they would most certainly take even stronger action against me, possibly getting a court order to bar the teenager kids (16-17) from seeing me against their will.

 

This has been an issue I have thought about before, before I have even read this news article, I have said to people before that I thought Child Protection in this country could be so nutty that you could lose your kids over pot.

 

I warn people about these people, I have had experience with them for over 10 years, and I will tell you- give you my word- than in my experience both the psychologists working for Child Protection and some of the social workers and willing to blatantly lie and make up abuse claims to win their case. In court many claims were read that I know for a fact where is every way COMPLETELY FABRICATED AND FALSE. I was a direct witness against what they said because I had been a direct witness of the kids for 10 years and had lived with them for extensive periods. My friend in court was never given a chance to defend herself. The allegations against her were heard in court, but we prepared a detailed list of information and witnesses to refute it, but my the judge did not even allow my friend the opportunity to defend herself in court. Only hostile witnesses were allowed. I kid you not. The judge said he had made up his mind before the defense witnesses were called in. THE JUDGE HAS HEARD LIES. I swear on the graves of my dead parents, they blatantly lied, and they won. And they have successfully seriously damaged my reputation by the allegations they have made against me, which I don't want to talk about at this time (It greatly upsets me).

 

My final point: I am telling you, especially if you are poor and don't come from a family with a high income: Child Protection is your enemy. Some of these people simply think young and poor parents NEVER should be parents, and despise parents on welfare. They are motivated by bias, and if for whatever reason they decide they don't like you, they WILL find enough reason to remove your kids. You will witness your kids for months and months SCREAMING and WAILING to see their parents. It is damn horrific. I am absolutely certain that the kids have suffered irreversible psychological damage from the experience which will effect them for their whole lives.

 

I cannot simply explain my bad experiences with child protection.. My experience with them is far worst than what most people are cynical enough to believe.

Edited August 4, 2010 by cybergenesis