DCF Can't ask for hair follicle drug testing.

[Cheryl Martone]

Dear Parents & supporters,

 

  In a case involved in the Family, CPS/Juvenile courts as well criminal courts as I

experienced today a Family court Judge in New Britain CT was obliged to hear a parents case

but told the said parent to get a hair follicle test or his case will not be heard, hmmm.
Does this sound like coercion to me yes after I have studied up on the constitutional right to privacy,

because in this type of test your DNA (private)is also retrieved.

Is why I say you need to tell the Judge to vacate the order if there is no cause or probable cause.

 

Motion to Vacate Judgment/Order in a Family Law Action

Civil Rule 60  :   

http://www.lawhelp.org/documents/1416513215EN.pdf?stateabbrev=/WA/

or   

MOTION FOR ORDER OF NOTICE IN FAMILY CASES:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm167.pdf

From: Tom Dutkkiewicz

 

    The short answer is DCF and the State of Connecticut are forbidden to use hair follicle drug testing because it is unconstitutional.

 

    The long answer is that both DCF and the State of Connecticut agreed as a condition to the federal funding to use the federal drug testing program which doesn't allow hair follicle drug testing, only urine testing is allowed.

 

    The judges lack subject matter jurisdiction and DCF workers can't ask for it.  Below is a recent ruling from California but the conclusion is the same in ALL states because all states agreed to the conditions attached to the federal funding.

 

 

 

 

HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

DEBORAH M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; DARYL W., Real Party in Interest. 

 

D045854

 

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE

 

128 Cal. App. 4th 1181; 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 681; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3617; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927

 

April 29, 2005, Filed

 

PRIOR HISTORY:  [***1]  Proceedings in prohibition after superior court order compelling hair follicle drug test. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. ED24070, Alan Clements, Judge.

 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner mother sought a writ of prohibition, challenging an order of respondent, the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), that compelled her to submit to a hair follicle drug test. The mother had sought to have her child support amended. In response, real party in interest father had filed an order to show cause seeking a change in custody and visitation, as well as an order for drug testing.

 

OVERVIEW: At issue was whether Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a) permitted courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the trial court had determined engaged in habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances. In granting a writ of prohibition, the court held that §  3041.5(a) required any court-ordered drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and at present those federal standards only allowed for urine tests. The language of § 3041.5(a) and its statutory history demonstrated that only urine tests were allowed because the language "least intrusive method of testing" in §  3041.5(a) did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing had to be weighed, along with an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that if and when additional tests were permitted, the least intrusive method had to be used.

 

OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling a hair follicle drug test.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Thomas M. Dutkiewicz
P.O. Box 9775
Forestville, CT 06011-9775
860-833-4127

--

www.usconcernedparents.webs.com

 

CJ MARTON