After being forced to continue allowing unsupervised visitation by my children's father because our judge refused to see that my ex's drug abuse was, in fact, placing our children in harm's way, I started researching. I had always had a feeling that my children seemed "off" when they returned from visits. I wanted to believe it was probably just the copious amounts of screen time and lack of sleep they got when in his care, but something told me there was more to it. I started googling passive meth exposure in children, and what I found was shocking.
Unlike adults, who have to actually USE methamphetamine (whether by inhalation, ingestion, or injection) in order for a drug test result to be positive, children can absorb the drug passively. They need only be in a room where the drug is smoked. Hair follicle testing is the most sensitive test available for passive exposure in children and many CPS workers have incorporated it into their investigations (though sadly, many have not gotten the memo and continue to rely on urinalysis, which often leads to false-negatives). As many of you know, I had my son tested and his was indeed positive- very positive. When children register levels as high as an adult user, chances are the drug is being manufactured in the residence.
Even though I had a sneaking suspicion that my children were being exposed to the drug, I was still shocked to see that positive result. Even morre shocking was that when I went on a search for an expert to testify on how this could have happened, none seemed to know a thing about it. Every toxicologist I spoke to said the same thing: The only way someone can test positive is by actually using the drug themselves. This was problematic, considering my ex was already trying to turn this around on me, saying I must have given my child drugs in order to frame him. I located a woman who had been interviewed for an article I read on passive exposure. She is the white house appointed expert on drug endangered children. But my lawyer said her testimony would not be enough, as she is not a scientist. I freaking can't stand my lawyer. I really feel like she stood in my way so many times. I mean, this lady is an expert, and if the scientists don't know the science behind this then what good are they?
Oh, I could go on and on.
But the point is:
If you have someone using meth in your household, your children are being exposed. GET OUT. And another point is, the experts need to freaking stay up to date on new info. Yesterday I finally got on the ball and shared my story with a news outlet, my congressman, and dear old President Trump. I'm going to keep making noise about this because I can't rest. I'm still so upset. Yes, my kids are finally safe. He finally has supervised visitation, but it's not enough. He put us through hell. He probably caused irreparable damage to my children's brains. If a woman exposes her baby it is taken away at childbirth. Where's the gender equality movement on this issue?
Anyway, as I said, I could go on and on.
But here are some links to articles and research I wish others would take the time to look at.
Blessings.
Expert explains how children test positive for meth when exposed at home | KFOX
Hair drug testing of children suspected of exposure to the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Almost half (45%) of the children tested positive for methamphetamine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420647
Identifying methamphetamine exposure in children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24263642
Quantitative analysis of methamphetamine in hair of children removed from clandestine laboratories--evidence of passive exposure?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22300795