Drug laws are often biased toward particular drugs in regard to punishments (Crack vs Cocaine), and I wonder if these same biases play a factor in a parent getting their child taken away, or attempting to regain custody of their child. Do courts favor/disfavor certain kinds of drug addicts? I’ll (anecdotally) hear about people who lose their kids over meth or crack addiction, but never hear about parents who couldn’t keep custody of their children due to more ‘high class’ drugs like cocaine, MDMA, or prescription drugs.
Does the same inconsistency with drug laws also spill over into custody issues? Is it easier to get my kid back if I am a recovering alcoholic vs crack addict? Or is this based on other factors, such as reigion, race, etc?
I’m just speculating here, but could it be that the drugs that are most likely to cause one to lose custody are the drugs that are also the most likely to wreak the most havoc on one’s life in general? In other words, is it possible that it’s easier to be an occasional user and otherwise maintain some level of parenting ability when one is using coke or vicodin rather than on meth or crack?
From a legal/procedural standpoint, no. I worked at/with dfcs for a while, and reunifcation plans were based solely on what we found in the home that needed to change. Yes, drug tests have to come back clean, so I imagine that gives alcoholics a slight edge, but overall, we based our case plan on what made the home unsafe, and not why those things happened.