L-R Elisa Reiter and Daniel Pollack. Courtesy Photos The Impact of Drug and Alcohol Testing on Child Custody Evaluations
"A legislative update to the Texas Family Code in 2021 prevents the Department of Family and Protective Services from removing a child solely based on a parent testing positive for marijuana," write Elisa Reiter and Daniel Pollack.
October 23, 2024 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Drug and alcohol testing have become common practice in a variety of settings, including child custody evaluations. Parents sometimes accuse each other of not only drug use, but of suffering from addictions that impair parenting ability. Understanding the mechanics of drug testing, dispelling common myths about the (in)ability to circumvent such tests, and recognizing how drug test results can influence custody cases is crucial. Some cases merit monitoring via immediate and/or ongoing random testing, and there are instances where such demands prove unnecessary. In these cases, the accuser's actions can have significant repercussions regarding custody of minor children. It is essential to examine the role of drug and alcohol testing in custody evaluations, its implications, and the potential consequences on the parties involved.
The Mechanics of Drug and Alcohol Testing
Drug and alcohol testing involve analyzing biological samples to detect the presence of substances or their metabolites. Several testing methods are commonly used:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute read
The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute read
Does Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21
- 2Commonwealth Court Overturns Zoning Board’s Denial Based on Merger Doctrine and Unnecessary Hardship Questions
- 3De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 2
- 4Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 5Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
