Of course someone being reported for neglect is going to lie. What proof do they have that it was poppy seeds? Do they have hair tests etc showing zero opiate use?
>The day after Kate learned that she was suspected of using opioids—five days after she gave birth—the hospital "refused to discharge" her, the complaint says. That afternoon, DCPP caseworkers separately interrogated Kate and her husband, Jesse. Kate agreed to a second urine test, which came up negative. She was finally released that evening, but her baby did not come home until October 1, "ten days after her birth and five days after DCPP cleared Kate to bring her baby home."
> Although the DCPP "cleared Kate and Jesse to take baby A.L. home," the hospital kept the baby for another five days, and the agency's investigation continued. It included a "Certified Alcohol and Drug Counseling evaluation" and yet another urine test, which was "negative for all substances." In November, Kate received a letter saying the DCPP had concluded that "the allegation of neglect was 'unfounded.'"
>The day after Kate learned that she was suspected of using opioids—five days after she gave birth—the hospital "refused to discharge" her, the complaint says.
That was unlawful detention, by the way. By fraud, under false color of authority, and/or by force. They have no authority to hold anybody against their will (with very specific exceptions having to do with mental state and not applicable here).
> She was finally released that evening, but her baby did not come home until October 1, "ten days after her birth and five days after DCPP cleared Kate to bring her baby home."
That was kidnapping, by the way.
We're talking about actual felonies here. Not that you can get prosecutors interested in that kind of crime, but it's still true.
Because the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal framework. It's been well known for a while now that poppy seeds can trigger false positive results in a drug test, and it's not a particularly uncommon component of foodstuffs, so it constitutes reasonable doubt.
There's much worse problem that when the poppy seed false positives get enough exposure, real criminals are going to use poppy seed doubt, and get away with it it their lawyers are good enough.
Of course someone being reported for neglect is going to lie. What proof do they have that it was poppy seeds? Do they have hair tests etc showing zero opiate use?