ATLANTA, Ga. (InvestigateTV) – When Brittany Tucker’s brother died in 2015, “I took it the wrong way,” she said. “I turned to drugs.”

Tucker’s addiction led to state intervention on the part Georgia Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) in 2016. Within two years, DFCS removed all four of her children — including a daughter — from her care.

Under Georgia law — and the laws of many other states — when drugs are involved in child welfare cases, a judge can order drug monitoring of the parent. Tucker agreed to randomly analyze the drugs in hopes of getting her children back. State-contracted workers collected the samples and then sent them to subcontracted drug-testing labs.

Tucker admits to early relapses, but by 2019, she said she was sober for good. “I didn’t get sober for myself,” she said. “I did it for my kids.”

But her mandatory drug tests didn’t show that. According to results from state subcontracted labs, Tucker tested positive for methamphetamine during the times she claims she was sober. These results affected her visitation privileges with her children.

“I never got past supervised visits,” Tucker said. Convinced that the positive results from DFCS subcontracted labs were wrong, Tucker began testing at independent labs on the advice of her attorney, Darice Good.

Good, an attorney with 20 years of experience, represents parents fighting DFCS cases in juvenile court. She said that when Tucker would test at labs subcontracted by DFCS, the results were positive for drugs in some cases, but when her client tested at independent labs around the same time, those results were negative for drugs.

“There (are) so many false positives in these test results,” Good said.

Across the country, many states hire outside companies to conduct drug tests of parents involved in custody cases. And these contracts can be profitable. Idaho, for example, has contracts with six companies worth more than $1 million.

The Georgia Child Protection Agency has subcontracted with Adversity and Expertox. No laboratory currently has a direct contract with DFCS; however, DFCS direct contract companies actually subcontract drug screening laboratory work to Averhealth and Expertox.

Labs perform urine and hair follicle tests. DFCS is looking for both types because the drugs can only last up to a week in urine but about three months in hair follicles, according to the study. National Institutes of Health.

One Gwinnett County Juvenile CourtGood claimed that the two companies’ testing of hair follicles can lead to false positives. She also alleged improper handling of specimens and inadequate preparation for collection.

“These cases where our clients stay awake are really sad,” Good said. “They’re losing their kids to false positives.”

An opinion of an expert

InvestigateTV took Tucker’s case to the veteran toxicologist Ted Simonwho spent more than 10 years as a toxicologist for US Environmental Protection Agency.

Simon expresses concern about the validity of some of Tucker’s test results.

In 2018, Tucker underwent two hair screenings just days apart; the Expertox test subcontracted by DFCS tested positive for the drug, but 11 days later, an independent laboratory test tested negative for the drug. Since both hair screens were done within two weeks of each other, they should have had similar results, according to Simon.

“Those two samples don’t match what you’d expect,” he explained.

In 2019, a urine test came back negative for drugs, but a day later, a hair screen from Averhealth subcontracted by DFCS showed very high levels of drugs, Simon said. Because the levels were “so high” in the hair follicle, Simon said the drugs would also have shown up in the urine test.

“Hair tests are unreliable,” Simon said.

While Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) does not currently provide federal regulations on hair follicle testing, the agency has proposed regulations and guidance. The agency said disadvantages of hair screening include environmental contamination as well as hair bias, which affects accuracy. Because dark hair contains more base drugs due to enhanced melanin binding, interpretation of results is difficult.

Our investigators found multiple lawsuits pending against the two labs alleging false positives. The companies deny the allegations.

Michigan State Child protection services terminated its contract with Averhealth due to claims of inaccurate test results. In Texas, the state Forensic Commission withdrew the Expertox permit after review of charges of inaccurate results and deviations.

In Utah, media reports indicate that the state has dropped that company as a provider because of reliability questions.

In Georgia, an investigation revealed that DFCS management knew of major problems as early as 2018. Documents obtained through open records requests show dozens of emails, complaints and reviews from DFCS workers reporting a variety of concerns about testing and training .

Health concerns

A DFCS employee reported three false positives in one Averhealth case, while another employee said the company’s testing is 97 to 99 percent inaccurate. Another noted concerns about training and cross-contamination.

InvestigateTV also obtained a document that compiled a number of court concerns, including one from a local county judge that said the court would no longer accept Averhealth’s results.

Averhealth officials declined interview requests but answered several questions. “Georgia DFCS has never expressed any concern about false positive or false negative test results.” Adding, “The DFCS GA never informed Averhealth of a credible issue or result that Averhealth reported to be incorrect. Averhealth supports the results reported from our CAP-FDT and CLIA certified laboratory.”

Expertox concerns

State records also show concerns about Expertox. An email chain revealed that a DFCS worker wrote about a mother’s alleged false positive due to environmental exposure or over-the-counter drugs.

“This is a significant concern for the validity of any future screening results,” the DFCS worker said.

Dr. James Bourland, Expertox’s laboratory director, said he was hired in 2022 “to address issues related to the operation of the laboratory.” Dr Bourland said he has since implemented a two-step approach to testing and confirmation.

While Dr. Bourland said there was no pattern of false positives, he acknowledged that he had known of at least one recent false positive claim, one related to the email chain above. After reviewing the claim, Dr. Bourland said he believed environmental contamination or over-the-counter drug explanations were plausible in the case, according to state records.

There is one test that is not required by DFCS that may help eliminate concerns about false positive test results: D/L isomer. The method can detect legal forms of methamphetamine, such as nasal spray or an inhaler, and Dr. Bourland said he would make the test a priority in Georgia.

“It’s just difficult to find a lab that can do this effectively,” he said.

It’s a move Brittany Tucker wishes had come sooner. Since then she has started a business in her home that, using a heat press, implants images on T-shirts. Her DFCS case is officially closed and her older children are finally home; her daughter was eventually adopted by a new family.

“That fear, I don’t think it can ever go away, not just for me, but for my kids.” Tucker said: “It caused a lot of trauma, hurt and pain that we are still healing from today. We’re all in therapy because we’re trying to get over it.”

DFCS responds

DFCS would not comment on this specific case, but said that when there are allegations of false positives, it requires affidavits from laboratories that include details of chain of custody, testing methods and laboratory accreditation.

When asked why the agency still does hair follicle testing, the agency said, “There are evidence-based benefits supporting the use of hair follicle testing to include a longer detection window and the ability to assess historical patterns of use of drugs. It is important to note that there are testing limitations for all sample collection methods, including oral swabs and urinalysis. DFCS offers various methods of specimen collection to compensate for these limitations.”

“In most cases, DFCS will authorize the use of multiple collection methods for a single customer where one method is preferred, but this depends on the circumstances. For example, if a collector notices that a customer has bleached their hair, they can also collect a urine sample for testing.”

Copyright 2024 Gray Media. All rights reserved.