Drug testing doubt: Utah’s child welfare agency shares results of internal audit

Sustainable Development Goals and Drug Testing Accuracy Concerns in Utah

Introduction

In March, Morisha Quintana and Joshua Johnson reached out to the KSL Investigators in Price, Utah, expressing their concerns about the accuracy of court-ordered drug test results. They believed that the results they received were incorrect and wanted to fight against them. This article explores their story and highlights the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in addressing such issues.

Background

Quintana and Johnson are currently involved in a case with Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) as they work towards overcoming addiction and regaining full custody of their son. However, they had doubts about the accuracy of their drug test results, particularly Quintana’s test conducted by Averhealth, the company contracted by DCFS for testing. Quintana had evidence that a second test she took through a local recovery program came back negative for methamphetamine, while the Averhealth test was positive. DCFS reported the positive result to the judge, causing Quintana to question the fairness of the process.

Concerns and Changes

Quintana and Johnson’s case is not unique, as the KSL Investigators have reported similar claims from other families. However, DCFS has recently switched from Averhealth to a Utah-based company called Beechtree. DCFS Director Tonya Myrup emphasized the agency’s commitment to serving families and shared the results of an audit conducted after the KSL Investigators raised questions about drug testing accuracy. The audit, which reviewed less than 50 complaints filed with the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman during the agency’s contract with Averhealth, did not find any instances of inaccurate results according to DCFS.

Limitations and Seeking Solutions

Although the audit focused on complaints filed with the ombudsman’s office, it did not capture cases like Quintana and Johnson’s, where concerns were raised with caseworkers, attorneys, or the courts. Myrup explained that the ombudsman’s office was one avenue for complaints that provided accessible data for investigation. Based on the limited data available, Myrup stated that there are currently no plans to change DCFS’ drug testing policies or procedures for challenging results. She encouraged parents to rely on their legal representation to address concerns in court.

Impact on Families

Parents like Quintana and Johnson often face immediate consequences from positive drug test results, while challenging those results can be a lengthy process. In Quintana’s case, unsupervised visits with her son were taken away by DCFS, despite having secondary test results and undergoing additional hair follicle testing to prove her innocence. The delay in resolving these issues can result in lost time with their children.

Conclusion

While Quintana and Johnson did not receive a resolution for their conflicting test results from January, they have not encountered any further inaccuracies since then. They have been granted a trial home placement with their son. It is crucial for families to be aware of their rights and seek legal representation to challenge drug test results. The SDGs, particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), emphasize the importance of fair and accurate processes in child welfare cases.

If you have experienced an issue that you believe needs investigation, the KSL Investigators are here to help. Submit your tip at investigates@ksl.com or call 385-707-6153.

Follow @KSL5TV

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• SDG 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.
• SDG 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life.
• SDG 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
• SDG 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of families receiving social protection measures and support to overcome addiction and regain custody of their children.
• Number of cases where doubts are raised over the accuracy of drug test results.
• Percentage of positive drug test results that are thrown out by judges due to doubt over accuracy.
• Availability and accessibility of avenues for complaints and challenges to drug test results.
• Duration of time taken to challenge drug test results and regain custody of children.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: ksltv.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.