Hair Strand Drug Testing

[18city]

If drug use is alleged or admittedly used it is important within the Family Court to ensure that the right drug test is ordered. Only you will know which one is right for you.

When it comes to drugs, the Courts will usually order a hair strand test for three or six months. A three month test needs 3cm of hair growth and a 6 month sample needs 6cm so it very much depends on how much hair is available to test.

There are two different types of test available, one is an overview test and the other is a segmented test.

The overview test is a 3cm sample giving an overview result for the three month period. The results from this will simply be positive or negative with an overall reading.

The segmented test is different. A 3cm sample will be cut up into 3 x 1 month samples and each 1cm sample tested separately. If the sample covers say Jan to March and there has been 'some' drug use then the segmented test will pinpoint the month. It will also show an increase/decrease in drug use over time. So, for example, the test results could show positive for January and negative for February and March with each month giving its own reading. This method can prove one off/occasional use rather than addiction or regular use.

It is really important to get the Court to give directions on which test you have. You cannot decide yourself afterwards, you have to do the specific test that has been ordered.

If you haven't used any drugs at all it won't matter which test is ordered as both will give the desired negative result. Segmented tests are more expensive though.

If you have occasionally used a substance within the last three months then it is really important that you ask the Court to order a segmented test to prove you are not substance dependent.

If you are represented then a Barrister would ensure the right test is ordered but if you are self repping and don't know the difference then you could end up with the wrong test which could impact massively on your case.

Alphabiolabs is a Court approved testing company and the differences in testing methods are on their website. Here is the link.

Overview vs. Segmented (Month-by-Month) Hair Analysis - What is a Segmented Drug Test? | AlphaBiolabs UK

There are two types of hair drug tests available: overview or segmented (month-by-month) analysis. Read more about Overview vs. Segmented Hair Analysis...

www.alphabiolabs.co.uk

 

[Ash]

Thanks 18city. Does the same apply for alcohol testing? ie do they do segmented tests for that?

 

[18city]

I don't think they do. I have not been alcohol tested so I don't really know much about it.

 

[Dadoftwo]

Good piece of advice here. Thanks I was going to post a new question but thought it might make more sense to ask for it here. The mother takes cannabis regularly, at the hearing in May it was ordered : 22. The applicant shall submit to a hair strand test to test for cannabis use over the last six months.

The 1st FFH hearing in on Friday (finally after 1 year wait!) , but it turns out she didn't do the test but wants to get it done tomorrow. Would that go against her ? Can I use that to my advantage?

 

[Ash]

Does it give a date she has to submit the test by?

 

[18city]

Even if she does the test tomorrow, the results won't be back in time. They take 2 to 3 weeks to come back. I hope this doesn't cause you any more delay.

 

[Resolute]

If the last 6 months was ordered in May, hasn't she missed the boat? The period that caused concern cannot be tested any more.

If she failed to comply with testing ordered, the court should really "draw its own conclusion." If she was clean, why wouldn't she get tested?

In my view, not getting the test done does go against her, and it could be used to your advantage. I have a slight reservation about it being cannabis, not sure this would give the same concern as heroin or alcohol. Then again, if you have accounts of how cannabis use compromised her parenting, that is different.

 

[Dadoftwo]

Ash, the court didn't give a submission date but it does say in the last 6 months and that was in May 2022. As Resolute said, that period cannot be tested anymore, so surely she has something to hide. I know she didn't have the test done because she had cannabis in her because I know the people she smokes with and they told me themselves.

My point in my statement is that her erratic behaviour has caused a lot of conflicts and issues (which I believe are caused by her being under the influence of drugs). With multiple police involvement etc...

 

[Dadoftwo]

Even if she does the test tomorrow, the results won't be back in time. They take 2 to 3 weeks to come back. I hope this doesn't cause you any more delay.

I didn't realise that it'd take that long, I think I'll make it clear to the court that we cannot delay further hearings, she had 9 months to get it done.

 

[Hackedoff_dad]

My Ex wanted this for me, DJ refused they have no where to go with that now really lol

 

[Resolute]

Playing devils advocate, the court would probably overlook this if a clean test popped into the picture now. Even if it is late, it would show the substance has not been used for 6 months - problem solved. But, it seems she has timed it perfectly for the test not to be available in time. This might be seen as suggesting she is still using and/or she wants to cause a delay.

Erratic behaviour and police involvement would be a problem regardless of the cannabis test results. In some ways it would be a bigger mark against her if not induced by drugs.

There is even a possibility she will dump test results into evidence at the last minute. I have had pivotal documents dumped in at the last minute more than once.

Maybe you should look at the test stuff as a potential additional argument in support of your position, rather than the foundation of your position.

 

[Dadoftwo]

I thought the same thing, if she does a test now, the court will just ignore the fact that she didn't do it when required, and think all is good because the test is now showing negative.

I have a conference with the barrister tomorrow, I'll bring it up and see what he thinks.

 

[fraser196]

Thanks 18city. Does the same apply for alcohol testing? ie do they do segmented tests for that?

They can segment it by month, but it's a bit hit and miss. It takes 7 days for alcohol to reach the hair, so my holiday consumption appeared in the following month, as i was on holiday at the end of the month if that makes sense. It wasn't an issue, it just showed I was telling the truth and my drinking was not excessive, and actually negative for 2 months. Most folk will get the standard 3 month average test, but it should be noted, even if you're drinking 14units a week, that puts you very close to a fail score, so best approach is to abstain completely, then you have no worries.

 

[Dadoftwo]

Update: Mother filed her drug test covering the last 12 months a day before PTR and 2 weeks before FFH. The test shows negative for all 12 months. Originally she was ordered to do a drug test in May 22 covering the last 6 months. The judge in the end said the allegation of cannnabis is true, very likely she either had drugs in her system or were in the company that did.

 

[Dadoftwo]

In relation to the mother not taking the drug test when she was asked to and then taking the test a few days before the hearing WHICH the test did come back negative and it covered the last 12 months ... This is the judgement and the reasoning of the Judge. I thought it'd be useful for someone who may be self-represented and could use the argument below:

Spoiler: Click here

F alleges the children have been exposed to cannabis use because they sometimes come into his care smelling of cannabis.
• M denies cannabis use and the only explanation she can think of is that she had been exposed to passive cannabis smoke in her role as a community nurse.
• On [REDACTED] 2022 DDJ [REDACTED] ordered that M undergo a HST for cannabis use for the last six months – i.e. that would take account of the specific allegations made in [REDACTED]2022. M was represented by counsel at that hearing and I don’t entertain any doubt that she would have understood the implications of this test.
• It was not until after the PTR that the HST was done on [REDACTED]. On [REDACTED] M declared to the sample collector that she had applied hair dye rarely and last in [REDACTED] 2022 and that she regularly used thermal hair straighteners. Interestingly M also declares that she may have been passively exposed to cannabis.
A20
• Due to the length of M’s hair she was able to provide a 12 cm sample which is equal takes her back to the end of [REDACTED] 2022. In all segments M’s samples are negative
• At the expert opines that in respect of hair dye “if the hair has been treated prior to the sample collection, the results may have decreased significantly. In some circumstances, it may reduce the level to below the cut-off value.”
• Similarly, in respect of the use of hair straighteners the expert quotes a 2016 study in which it was found that there can be between a 3 to 100% loss of THC from samples. And therefore the expert opines that if hair straighteners were used prior to the collection of the sample it is possible that the concentrations of THC that may be present in the hair are significantly understated.
• In terms of result information the expert states: “it is important to note that when interpreting negative results the sample maybe either truly negative or it may indeed contain the drug or metabolitites only at a concentration below the cut-off levels.”
• The experts conclusion is that there are negative samples but due to the disclosure of
the hair dye it is possible that the results in corresponding hair segments have been lowered.
• M was criticised for delaying taking the HST. She responded by saying that it was an invasive procedure and she had bald patches. Further, she added, she felt that the HST was a way for F to control her.
• Knowing that HST requires a small amount of hair to be taken from the scalp I can
understand why someone would be apprehensive about the cosmetic effect of the HST sample being taken. However, it seems to me that M’s position would have more strength if it was that she failed to take the test at all.
• At no point did M apply for a variation of the order despite the fact that she told me in oral evidence that she didn’t think it was necessary.
• Notwithstanding that on the face of DDJ Joshi’s order there are not any declarations or warnings about hair dying or the use of straighteners I am concerned that in agreeing to do the test so late M has made an attempt to manipulate the evidence.
• I remind myself that she does not have to prove she has not done that, but she has on her own admission manipulated other evidence in this case.
• On balance I struggle to find a credible explanation as to why it is that someone would
delay a HST for nine months if there was no forensic reason to do so despite them feeling it was unnecessary. Arguably, if may have been to M’s advantage to provide a quick and negative test to scotch F’s allegations.
• Therefore I infer that there was a forensic reason that M delayed the testing and that reason can only have been that she knew that cannabis may have been detected
within the sample. Moreover, I am mindful of the fact that a negative result in [REDACTED] 2023 after the application of hair dye and the use of hair straighteners, both of which have a significant depressive factor on detection rate leads me to doubt that the negative result is a true negative result. On balance, I conclude it is likely a false negative because of those factors.
• I accept therefore that M either used cannabis herself or spent time in the company of
those that did with the result that the children’s clothing smelt faintly of cannabis at
the material time.

 

[Ash]

"M has made an attempt to manipulate the evidence". Good finding. Was this for a fact find? I'm not sure it's a good idea to post a Judgement for an ongoing case on here - for now I've put it in the spoiler and will probably take it down with a summary comment, once people have had a look

 

[Dadoftwo]

Yes, it was for the last fact-finding, took me a while to get hold of it. This was on Feb 23. Nevertheless, reading the Judgement, the Judge had no problem with the drugs Let's all take drugs, shall we? It's ridiculous, if the role were reversed I don't think it would have gone down the same way.

 

[Ash]

But he found she manipulated the evidence. And that she either took drugs or was in the presence of those who took drugs (which is not a finding that she took drugs). That bit doesn't add up anyway - why would the kids clothes smell of drugs unless they had been in the presence of someone smoking them? They wouldn't smell of it just because the Mother picked it up on her own clothes - they'd need to have been in the room.

Anyway it's still a good finding and you can use that judgement as evidence at the final hearing. It will really help. Meanwhile the SW will do a section 7 in your ex's favour, as usual. So you'll need to be prepared to have SW cross examined at the final hearing to get the S7 dismissed as flawed.

 

[InvisibleIntellectual]

Ash - yes they do segmented for Hair Strand tests and can take them from *any* hair area .....

 

[tbeardon]

Hi all, I’ve been supporting my partner through his battle for access. He hasn’t seen his children in 2 years they are 8 & 4, the mother has accused DV and alcoholism. Section 7 has been done and they suggested a hair strand test, no evidence of DV and this wasn’t even brought up by the judges at the last dispute hearing. My partner will start contact centre contact almost immediately and then there is another hearing in December following the HST. The court have requested a test to show 6 months via the GP. Although he wouldn’t drink alcohol when the children were in his care we are now a little
Concerned after reading various things. They’re testing for chronic/excessive alcohol use. What does this mean? We’ve had a couple of 2 week all inclusive holidays in that time period and birthday/wedding celebrations. Usually I’d estimate 2 drinking days a week this could be a few whiskeys and the sharing of a red wine or sometimes a few ales. What units do they go off does anyone know? As I read excessive drinking to be 7.5 units a day or 52.5 a week which he’d be no where near. Thanks in advance.