Evidence-Based Reviews

Evaluating and monitoring drug and alcohol use during child custody disputes

Current Psychiatry. 2017 April;16(4):30-31,39-42

References

1. Amato PT, Previti D. People’s reasons for divorcing: gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. J Fam Issues. 2003;24(5):602-606.
2. Glancy GD, Ash P, Bath EP, et al. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic assessment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43(suppl 2):S3-S53.
3. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Drug testing in child welfare: practice and policy considerations. HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 10-4556. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2010.
4. Macdonald DI, DuPont RL. The role of the medical review officer. In: Graham AW, Schultz TK, eds. Principles of addiction medicine, 2nd ed. Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 1998:1259.
5. Swotinsky RB. The medical review officer’s manual: MROCC’s guide to drug testing. 5th ed. Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Health Information; 2015.
6. Marques PR, McKnight AS. Evaluating transdermal alcohol measuring devices. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation; 2007.
7. Steroidal.com. How steroid drug testing works. https://www.steroidal.com/steroid-detection-times. Accessed March 8, 2017.
8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The role of biomarkers in the treatment of alcohol use disorders, 2012 revision. SAMHSA Advisory. 2012;11(2):1-8.
9. United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. Detection of the direct alcohol biomarker ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in hair: an annotated bibliography. http://www.usdtl.com/media/white-papers/ETG_hair_annotated_bibliography_032014.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2017.
10. Viel G, Boscolo-Berto R, Cecchetto G, et al. Phosphatidylethanol in blood as a marker of chronic alcohol use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13(11):14788-14812.
11. SoberLink. https://www.soberlink.com. Accessed March 8, 2017.
12. Scram Systems. https://www.scramsystems.com/products/scram-continuous-alcohol-monitoring/?gclid=CIqUr8Kqx9ICFZmCswodI0QKPA. Accessed March 8, 2017.
13. Swotinsky RB. The medical review officer’s manual: MROCC’s guide to drug testing. 5th ed. Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Health Information; 2015:208.
14. Chamberlain RT. Legal review for testing of drugs in hair. Forensic Sci Rev. 2007;19(1-2):85-94.
15. Marriage of Carney, 24 Cal 3d725,157 Cal Rptr 383 (1979).
16. Marriage of Stout, 216 Mont 342 (Mont 1985).
17. Hynan DJ. Child custody evaluation, new theoretical applications and research. In: Hynan DJ. Difficult evaluation challenges: domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, and relocations. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher; 2014:178-195.

UDS, the most common test, is non-invasive, although awkward and intrusive for the subject when done with the strictest “observed” protocol. Most testing protocols do not require a “directly observed” urine collection unless there is a suspicion that the testee has substituted her (his) urine for a sample from someone else. Breath testing, although similarly non-invasive, is only useful for alcohol testing and can detect use only several hours before the test.

The urine test for the alcohol metabolites ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS) points toward alcohol use in the previous 3 days, but the test is plagued with false-positives at the lower cutoff values.⁸ EtG can be accurately assayed in human hair.⁹

Other tests. Dried blood spot testing for phosphatidylethanol is accurate in finding moderate to heavy alcohol use up to 3 weeks before the test.¹⁰ Saliva tests also can be useful for point-of-service testing, but the dearth of studies for this methodology makes it less useful in a courtroom setting. Newer technologies using handheld breathalyzers connected to a device with facial recognition software^11,12 allow for random and “for-cause” alcohol testing, and can be useful in child custody negotiations. Hair sample testing, which can detect drug use over the 3 months before the test, is becoming more acceptable in the legal setting. However, hair testing cannot identify drug use 7 to 10 days before the test and does not test for alcohol¹³; and some questions remain regarding its reliability for different ethnic groups.¹⁴

Table 4 summarizes some of the most productive testing methods for child custody disputes. Selecting the best tissue, method, and timing for testing will depend on the clinical scenario, as well as the court’s requirements. For example, negotiations between parties could result in a testing protocol that uses both random and for-cause testing of urine, breath, and hair to prove that the individual does not use any illicit substances. In a less serious clinical circumstance—or less contentious legal situation—the testing protocol may necessitate only occasional UDS to make sure that the subject is not using prohibited substances.

Evaluating and monitoring drug and alcohol use during child custody disputes

References

Pages

Recommended Reading