Summary: Risks in the Misinterpretation of Drug Tests in Family Courts

FTS featured in news stories on drug testing in the family courts

Two recent investigations, one by The Guardian and another by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), have brought to light the alarming impact of misinterpreted hair-strand drug tests in the UK’s family court system. These findings reveal that misleading reporting of results have led to families being unjustly torn apart. 

Hair-strand drug testing, a method developed in the 1990s, is considered a reliable way to detect substance use. The technology analyses hair samples for traces of drugs that are absorbed as the hair grows. While it can provide valuable insights, experts warn that the way many companies present their results, together with their use of outdated cut-off levels to report findings, can have devastating consequences. 

A central issue raised in both articles is that hair test results are often presented as conclusive evidence, but they can be influenced by a range of factors. Elements such as hair colour, ethnicity, pregnancy, and exposure to ultraviolet light or certain hair products can affect drug absorption. Environmental factors, such as living in the same household as a drug user, can also lead to significant drug traces being detected in a person’s hair—even if they have never used drugs themselves. Conversely, regular drug users might show lower or even undetectable levels if their hair is naturally blonde or red, has been dyed or chemically treated. 

Paul Hunter, Technical Director and a specialist in drug testing at FTS, highlighted that the implications of how hair strand tests are presented to the courts are far-reaching. He noted that individuals who have never used drugs are losing custody of their children due to inaccurate interpretations of test results. This is particularly concerning given that decisions in family courts often rely heavily on such evidence. In cases involving allegations of drug use, hair-strand tests can carry significant weight, sometimes tipping the scales against parents. A particular concern with companies using cut-off levels is the fact that hair with darker pigmentation absorbs drugs more readily. This means a person with black hair can be found to have dramatically higher levels of drugs in their hair compared someone with red or blond hair, even if their drug use is identical. Consequently, with the use of cut-offs, a parent is more likely to lose custody of their child if they are African, Afro Caribbean or Asian. 

The TBIJ investigation underscored the need for greater scrutiny and transparency in the use of forensic evidence in family courts.  In some cases, testing companies, courts and social services have failed to consider alternative explanations for positive drug tests, such as environmental contamination, hair colour or lifestyle. This has resulted in irreversible decisions where children are removed from their families. 

Advocacy groups, legal experts, and parents affected by these decisions are urging the government to review how hair strand testing is used in family courts. Proposals include an increased focus on the context of each case rather than reliance on arbitrary cut-off levels, as well as an end to the use of cut-off levels. 

These reports serve as a stark reminder of the human cost of hair strand evidence in legal systems. They also underscore the need for family courts to balance scientific data with compassion, ensuring that the best interests of children and their families are always prioritised. 

For further details, please refer to the original articles: by The Guardian and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.