Family Nearly Loses Newborn Over Faulty Urine Test (involving marijuana)

[Zhade]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/5223179/detail.html

Family Nearly Loses Newborn Over Faulty Urine Test

Hospital Claims Katrina Evacuee's Newborn Tested Positive For Drugs

POSTED: 10:53 am CST November 1, 2005

HOUSTON -- A newborn was reunited with her family Monday night after the state took custody of the baby and her older brother after her urine tested positive for marijuana, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Zelma Jackson gave birth to her second child on Oct. 19 at Northeast Hospital in Houston after she and her family fled Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina.

However, Child Protective Services took custody of the newborn girl and her 3-year-old brother after the hospital reported a positive test for marijuana based on an unconfirmed urine test. Hospital officials have not said how they legally retrieved a urine sample from the baby.

"I told them, 'I don't do drugs, so I'm wondering how did you all find marijuana in my child's system when I don't smoke marijuana,'" Jackson told KPRC Local 2.

Two things: even IF she smoked pot, her kids should not be taken away unless she is somehow negligent, and yes, the family is black.

[chimppyhater]

1. I guess the next step

is to turn the children into slaves involved in the cleanup. I wouldn't doubt that they would give the custody of the children to Halliburton!

[Zhade]

3. That's a frightening thought.

On the other hand, I doubt a newborn can do much heavy lifting.

:evilgrin:

Seriously, though, this is messed up.

[freeplessinseattle]

2. say whaa? is it common practice to give newborns

urine tests? what the hell.

[Indy Lurker]

6. They usualy do it when they collect the DNA sample n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

10. I think DNA is usually done via a swab from the child's mouth.

Not urine.

[mopinko]

54. they collect dna samples from newborns?

routinely?

[rodeodance]

7. something fishy -

[Book Lover]

4. Another thing in the article...

"Zelma Jackson worked in patient services for Tulane Hospital and her was husband, Marcel, a former military member, worked as a construction worker in New Orleans."

Does "former military member" mean something other than "veteran"? Can one be a former member of the military without being a vet?

[Zhade]

19. Good question!

NT!

[China_cat]

30. Yes, they can

they can have been given a dishonorable discharge, which negates any 'veteran's' rights or have been separated for the 'good of the service' which isn't quite dishonorable.

In either case, the person with such a discharge is not considered a vet.

However, if either of those conditions had been relevant, you can be damned sure that would have been included in the article in bold face 24pt. type.

[Book Lover]

31. Thanks for the clarification

It's the Army, after all; there's got to be eighty ways of saying the same thing...

[SnowGoose]

5. Why would they even be *looking* for that?

Unless, of course, they caught the newborn with an empty bag of double-stuff oreos and a Bob Marley tape.

I'd assume that wasn't the case.

[DBoon]

11. because Zelma is most likely African-American

basic racism no doubt

[Zhade]

20. See the pic with the article.

NT!

[DBoon]

36. It pays to RTFA

They wouldn't do this to a white mother unless there were obvious signs of drug abuse and neglect.

This is the equivalent of the old literacy tests for voting, where the test is selectively applied against the descendents of former slaves.

[Zhade]

42. Agreed.

NT!

[Midlodemocrat]

8. I think it is routine to take a child from parents if they test postiive

for illegal drugs. The baby that is, not the parents.

I am more interested in how they obtained the urine sample and what provoked them to do so.

[RobinA]

37. No It's Not

I worked for Children & Youth for 4 years. Never did we take a child away solely based on the mother testing positive for drugs. Especially not for marijuana. I'm sure it happens in a jurisdiction somewhere (for crack), but frankly, the system would grind to a halt and collapse if this were common practice.

I'm sure there are parents out there who would like you to believe that their child was removed because they walked past a person who smoked pot three days ago and thus tested poistive upon delivery, but it just doesn't work that way.

My favorite excuse for testing postive for cocaine upon delivery: "We just moved to a new house and there was a spoon in the house when we moved in. We used that spoon without washing it, and it must have had cocaine on it." Child was not removed. When the same mother tested positive upon delivery of her second child: "We let this friend of ours stay with us and we told her she had to leave because we found out she smoked crack. She was mad at us and sprinkled cocaine on our food without us knowing it." Child not removed.

[Midlodemocrat]

43. I worked with DCYS as well, as

a psychologist and I can't ever remember a newborn testing positive that wasn't removed from the home.

Personally, if there are illegal drugs that children are getting into, I think they should be removed.

[Aimah]

53. Red Alarms

I'd worry about a parent that used a spoon they just found lying around in a strange environment without washing it. I'd be concerened about someone who let crack heads live in their home with their kids. It's sad. My sister has a 2 day old baby now who was taken from the mom because she already has 2 kids in the system. They havn't told us why.

[LeighAnn]

49. It is routine to take a baby from a mother who tests positive for anything

Most states test every woman who gives birth during labor, regardless of whether there is suspicion or not. Absolutely routine.

[kath]

50. When did this start (testing EVERY woman during labor)? - it sure as hell

wasn't going on when I was in residency and practice (mid 80s through early 90s).

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. Houston, we have a problem.

The only thing that comforts me about being in Florida is that at least I'm not in Texas. No offense Texans. Anyway I'm back in California right now and this place is not doing so great either.

[DBoon]

12. In CA we should test the governor for steroid use

and if he tests positive, take the state away from him!

[Zhade]

21. Another Floridian-relocated-to-Cali here!

And my mom's family is from just outside Waco.

What part of FL are you from? My parents are in Pensacola, I grew up in Fort Walton.

[Sequoia]

29. That's because we have a Nazi for Governor!

[rodeodance]

13. and they thought the mom was a 'flight risk'! (cause she was a refugee??)

CPS said they also took custody of the children because case investigators believed the Jacksons were a flight risk.

The entire family underwent a new round of drug tests, in which all of the results came back negative.

Hospital officials have not said where they obtained the original urine sample that tested positive.

CPS has since dropped the case.

[rodeodance]

14. I feed bad for the family--false drug tests are a real problem for many.

[sniffa]

15. this was just a mix up

the baby may one day grow up and weLL not actuaLLy smoke marijuana, but might come into contact with someone who does. so the state was just being cautious.

an ounce of prevention is worth 453.6 grams of cure.

[Zhade]

22. I thought it was worth 28.5 grams of cure?

:smoke:

BTW, I never said it, but your "gateway to harder forms of cancer" line was CLASSIC!

[sniffa]

28. famiLiar in drug weights

but Lacking in oLd axioms.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

or 28.5 grams of prevention is worth 453.6 grams of cure.


thanks for the beLated praise - i aim to entertain. :smoke:

[LeighAnn]

32. Hope you're just joking

>>>the baby may one day grow up and weLL not actuaLLy smoke marijuana, but might come into contact with someone who does. so the state was just being cautious.<<<

So what if he grows up and comes into contact with someone who smokes marijuana? Tell me you're just joking, that you're not really a CPS apologist who actually thinks along the lines of what you just said.

>>>an ounce of prevention is worth 453.6 grams of cure.<<<

Yes, and taking a newborn from an innocent family can be a traumatic experience that lasts a lifetime. I hope these people sue.

[rocktivity]

16. "Hospital officials have not said

where they obtained the original urine sample."

Well, if they DIDN'T get it from THE BABY, then WHO??? If they test newborn urine as a matter of routine (which I would be okay with), then why not admit it? And did they check the mother's story by testing HER for marijuana? I could forgive the hospital for bungling the test results--accidents DO happen. But can't they seee that they're making themselves look that much MORE incompetent by playing dumb about where the sample came from!

:crazy:
rocknation

[Bridget Burke]

23. Sounds like they need a Quality Assurance program.....

This "mistake" could be worse. "Mix ups" while running tests can lead to medical problems. The hospital needs to find out EXACTLY what happened & announce it.

By the way, urine testing is not routine for newborns. Blood tests are run to detect genetic problems, etc.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. labs and pathology are the number one mistake in hospitals

[truebrit71]

17. WHY WAS THE TEST DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Answer: Because the mother was black.

[RobinA]

38. I'm Not Sure

what causes a hospital to urine test Mom, or if they do it as a matter of course. It has nothing to do with color, I used to work for CPS and we get calls for black and white Moms with positive tests. Sometimes its history, sometimes it's lack of prenatal care. I don't know, since we don't get calls for negative tests, and we rarely get calls where there's been prenatal care and no history.

[rocktivity]

41. The LEAST they could have done was test the mother, too

if only to ensure they had an "ironclad case" before deciding to "sic" CPS on the family. Now they don't even have the luxury of saying, "It was a big mistake, we're sorry, and we're going to find out why it happened."

:headbang:
rocknation

[SOS]

18. These oppressors

apparently aren't familiar with the Brazleton study done in Jamaica:

" Comparing the two groups, the neonates of mothers who used marijuana showed better physiological stability at 1 month and required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state and become available for social stimulation. The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the nonusing mothers were even more striking. The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts. The quality of their alertness was higher; their motor and autonomic systems were more robust; they were less irritable; they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone; they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized; they had better self-regulation; and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of nonusing mothers at 1 month of age."

[kath]

51. Here's a link to that study - it wasn't done by T. Berry Brazelton, but

it did use the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale to rate the babies' development/behavior.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm

[Devil Dog Dem]

24. If we were smart and competent we'd make a big deal out of this.

And tie it around the necks of the Republicans.

But, that assumes the Dems are smart and competent.

[Angry Girl]

25. THC can linger in your body fat for YEARS

So even if they took a urine sample from the mother, this is the most heinous thing I've ever heard of!

[xxqqqzme]

26. guess the situation is

NOT 'working out very well' for the Jackson family in Houston.

Why the hell are they testing newborn's urine anyway???

[truthisfreedom]

27. complete breakdown of morality... who wrote these bizarre laws?

wouldn't the next step be to DO A SECOND TEST? INSTEAD OF TAKING THE BABY AWAY?

and who would take away a baby for POT SMOKING??? finding ALCOHOL in the baby's blood might be cause for taking away a baby, but come, now... the lawmakers involved in this debacle should ALL BE TESTED FOR DRUGS 7 DAYS A WEEK, AND THEIR DNA SHOULD BE ON FILE WITH THE FBI.

[zbdent]

33. This makes me think of the local RW morning DJ in Akron

who was bitching about how "nobody" (read: the Liberals, the state children's bureau/whatever) took away that California woman's children when she was diagnosed as having mental health issues (only a few months ago). (The one who threw her kids in the bay).

If they HAD taken the kids away, then he would have been faulting the liberals for confiscating this woman's children . . . and he would not have had the opportunity to express outrage about how she killed them.

[WindRavenX]

35. what the flying fuck???

If I was the mother, I'd be calling my lawyer to know what the fuck is going on.

[rocktivity]

40. She should sue their butts off

unless they can explain why they gave the baby the test and not her. They had a chance to explain that the results got mixed up, apologized, and promised an investigation. But now they should be made to explain why they don't know how or why the test was done.

:headbang:
rocknation

[High Plains]

39. Child Protective Services....

...who will protect us from the protectors?

[Zhade]

44. Kick!

Glad to see some outrage over this!

[Ilsa]

45. Flight risk? They had held jobs! She was seeking

medical care for the birth! Why would anyone think she's a flight risk unless they were labelling her discriminately based on her color?

There's alot bullshit in Houston. That poor mom and baby.

[Cults4Bush]

46. That is one screwed up law! In-freakin'-sane.

I'd like to take the kids away from the lunatics that thought this shit up... and I could give a flying fuck if its a Dem.

[ninkasi]

47. This infuriates me...

First, the family suffers trauma due to having to leave Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina. That alone must have been a nightmare. Then, the poor woman gave birth in another state, and trust me, no matter how much a couple want a child, it is still a traumatic experience. How much more so it must have been for Ms. Jackson, after leaving her home, I can only imagine.

Then, to top it off, to add insult to injury, she has her newborn daughter and 3 year old son taken away, due to a botched drug test that the hospital can't explain! Compare this to the way Noelle Bush's drug problems were handled in Fla. Does anybody doubt that this happened because the family committed the sin of being black in America?

I'm sorry...I'm white, and while I don't like to automatically assume that every injustice stems from racial prejudices, that certainly appears to have been the case here. Possibly the hospital can explain why they tested the child's urine, and what their justification for testing it was.

[Zhade]

48. Indeed.

NT!

[Aimah]

52. Not sure about that.

Most of the newborns my sister gets (she is a foster care provider) came into the system after having drugs found in their system. Whether the mothers were tested positive first and then caused them to test the child I don't know.

[depakid]

55. Texas again...

NOTHING that comes out of that state surprises me.

There really must be something in the water there.