I. INTRODUCTION

In the present case, the lower court took jurisdiction over a small child, N.R., and removed him from Father without any evidence of actual or imminent harm. The Department of Children and Family Services removed N.R. based on vague and subjective assessments that rely upon unfair, inaccurate, and discriminatory assumptions regarding drug use. Although accepted clinical standards corroborate that Father’s single, positive drug test is not sufficient to support a finding of “substance abuse,” the courts upheld N.R.’s removal based on a judicially-created presumption that drug “abuse” constitutes “substantial risk of harm” to a child under the age of 6.

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b) authorizes the juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child when the “child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of … [t]he inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s … substance abuse.”2 The term “substance abuse” is not defined in statute. This case presents the question whether “substance abuse” should be determined by objective criteria applied by qualified professionals or by subjective, undisclosed criteria susceptible to stigma and bias. Given the law’s preference for keeping families together and the harms caused by family separation, the answer must be the former.

Based on their professional expertise and knowledge of relevant medical and scientific research and practices, amici curiae seek to assist this Court by making known the medical and scientific literature on substance use that explicitly contradict the reasoning of the lower courts. Amici write to correct the false assumptions underlying the Appellate Court’s decision, and to elucidate the ramifications of these assumptions in causing unnecessary family separations that cause lasting harm to children.

First, as discussed in Part I, the Appellate Court erroneously conflated substance use with a substance use disorder, contrary to accepted scientific standards, and then further conflated substance use with substantial risk to the child.

Second, as discussed in Part II, the Appellate Court’s stigma-driven, unfair, and inaccurate conclusions about substance use contradict the medical and scientific communities’ recognition that parental drug use by itself does not pose a risk of harm to children.

Third, as discussed in Part III, the scientifically unsound and discriminatory assumptions of the war on drugs reflected in the Appellate Court’s decision will continue to justify unnecessary and harmful family separations unless this Court intervenes.

Amici therefore respectfully request this Court reject the assumption that parental drug use alone poses a risk of harm that justifies state jurisdiction, and instead instruct the courts to rely on evidence-based and objective criteria that will combat the harms created by unnecessary family separation.

Introduction

A lower court removed a child, N.R., from a parent's care without clear evidence of immediate or future harm. This decision stemmed from vague and subjective evaluations, relying on unfair assumptions about drug use. While professional clinical standards indicate that a single positive drug test does not prove "substance use," the courts upheld the removal. This was based on a judicial interpretation that drug "abuse" automatically means "substantial risk of harm" for children under six years old. California law allows juvenile courts to intervene when a child faces a "substantial risk" of harm due to a parent's "substance use," but the term "substance use" lacks a statutory definition. This case therefore raises a critical question: should "substance use" be determined by objective, professional standards, or by subjective criteria prone to bias? Given the legal preference for keeping families together and the known harms of separation, the answer should favor objective standards.

Organizations acting as friends of the court (amici curiae) aim to assist the Court. Drawing on their professional knowledge and relevant medical and scientific research, they seek to highlight literature that directly contradicts the lower courts' reasoning. These organizations aim to correct the mistaken assumptions underpinning the Appellate Court’s decision and clarify how these assumptions lead to unnecessary family separations, causing lasting harm to children.

Specifically, the Appellate Court incorrectly equated substance use with a substance use disorder, which goes against accepted scientific standards. It then further mistakenly linked substance use directly to a substantial risk for a child. These stigma-driven conclusions regarding substance use are inaccurate and unfair. They contradict the consensus in the medical and scientific communities, which holds that parental drug use, by itself, does not inherently pose a risk of harm to children.

The scientifically unsupported and discriminatory assumptions evident in the Appellate Court’s decision reflect a broader "war on drugs" mentality. If left unaddressed, these assumptions will continue to justify family separations that are both unnecessary and harmful.

Therefore, the amici respectfully ask this Court to reject the notion that parental drug use alone presents a risk of harm sufficient to warrant state intervention. Instead, the Court should direct lower courts to use evidence-based and objective criteria. This approach would help prevent the harms caused by unnecessary family separations.

I. Introduction

A lower court removed a young child, N.R., from a parent without clear proof of actual or immediate harm. The Department of Children and Family Services took N.R. based on general and subjective evaluations, relying on unfair, inaccurate, and biased ideas about drug use. While accepted medical standards confirm that a single positive drug test from the parent is not enough to prove "substance use," the courts still upheld N.R.'s removal. This decision was based on a judicial assumption that "drug abuse" automatically poses a "substantial risk of harm" to children under six years old.

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b) permits a juvenile court to assume control over a child if the child has suffered, or faces a significant risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness. This can occur if a parent or guardian is unable to provide regular care due to "substance use." However, the term "substance use" is not legally defined in this code. This case raises the critical question of whether "substance use" should be determined by objective standards used by qualified professionals or by subjective, unstated criteria that could lead to prejudice. Given that the law favors keeping families together and recognizing the harm caused by family separation, the former approach is preferable.

Groups known as "amici curiae," or friends of the court, are offering their professional knowledge and relevant medical and scientific research to assist this Court. These groups aim to highlight medical and scientific literature that directly contradicts the reasoning of the lower courts. Their goal is to correct the mistaken assumptions behind the Appellate Court's decision and to explain how these assumptions lead to unnecessary family separations, which cause lasting harm to children.

The amici curiae emphasize several critical points. First, the Appellate Court incorrectly treated substance use as the same as a substance use disorder, contrary to established scientific standards, and then further equated substance use with a significant risk to the child. Second, the Appellate Court's conclusions were driven by stigma and were both unfair and inaccurate regarding substance use. These conclusions contradict the medical and scientific understanding that parental drug use, by itself, does not necessarily pose a risk of harm to children. Third, the unscientific and discriminatory assumptions, which reflect outdated "war on drugs" policies in the Appellate Court's decision, will continue to justify unnecessary and damaging family separations unless this Court intervenes.

Therefore, the amici curiae respectfully ask this Court to reject the idea that parental drug use alone creates a risk of harm that justifies state intervention. Instead, they request that the courts be instructed to rely on evidence-based and objective criteria. This approach would help combat the harm caused by unnecessary family separations.

Introduction

A lower court recently took control of a young child, N.R., and removed the child from the father. This happened without clear proof that the child was in immediate danger or had already been harmed. The Department of Children and Family Services removed N.R. based on unclear and personal assessments. These assessments relied on unfair, incorrect, and biased ideas about drug use. Medical standards confirm that a single positive drug test from the father is not enough to prove "substance use." However, the courts still upheld N.R.'s removal. This was based on a rule created by the courts, which assumes that drug "abuse" automatically means a child under six is in "substantial risk of harm."

California law allows a juvenile court to take control of a child if there is a major risk of physical harm or illness. This risk can come from a parent's inability to provide care due to "substance use." The law itself does not define "substance use." This case raises the important question of whether "substance use" should be decided by clear rules from experts, or by personal, unstated rules that can lead to prejudice. Given that the law favors keeping families together, and knowing the damage family separation causes, the answer should be based on expert criteria.

Groups offering expert advice to the court aim to help by sharing medical and scientific research. This research directly goes against the reasons used by the lower courts. These experts want to correct the false ideas behind the Appellate Court's decision. They also want to show how these ideas cause families to be separated unnecessarily, leading to lasting harm for children.

These expert groups argue several key points. First, the Appellate Court wrongly treated simple substance use as a severe substance use disorder, and then mistakenly assumed that any substance use meant a high risk to the child. Second, the court's conclusions about substance use were based on negative stereotypes and were inaccurate. These conclusions go against what medical and scientific communities recognize: that a parent's drug use by itself does not necessarily put children at risk. Third, the court's beliefs, which are not supported by science and reflect outdated ideas from the "war on drugs," will continue to justify harmful family separations unless the higher court steps in.

Therefore, these expert groups respectfully ask this Court to reject the idea that a parent's drug use alone creates enough risk to take control of a child. Instead, they ask the courts to use criteria that are based on facts and evidence, which will help prevent the harm caused by separating families unnecessarily.

INTRODUCTION

A court took a young child, N.R., away from his father. This happened even though there was no proof the child was in danger. The Department of Children and Family Services took N.R. because of unclear ideas about drug use that were not fair or correct. Doctors say that one positive drug test is not enough to say someone abuses drugs. But the courts still took N.R. away. They said that drug abuse always puts a child under six in great danger.

California law lets a court take a child if the child is in great danger or gets very sick because a parent cannot care for them due to "substance use." The law does not say what "substance use" means. This case asks if "substance use" should be decided by clear rules from trained experts, or by unfair ideas that can come from bad feelings about drug use. The law wants families to stay together. So, the decision should come from clear rules.

Groups of experts want to help the court. They have special knowledge from medical and science studies. These studies show that the lower courts' ideas are wrong. The court wrongly mixed up drug use with a drug problem. Doctors and scientists say that a parent using drugs does not, by itself, mean a child is in danger. The experts want to fix these wrong ideas that cause families to be split up when it is not needed. This splitting up hurts children for a long time.

The experts point out three main problems with the court's decision. First, the court wrongly said that drug use itself always puts a child in great danger. Second, the court's unfair ideas about drug use came from bad feelings, not facts. Third, the decision uses old ideas that are not based on science and are unfair. These ideas keep tearing families apart without good reason.

The experts ask this Court to stop the idea that a parent using drugs alone means a child is in danger. Instead, they ask the Court to tell other courts to use clear, proven rules. This will help stop families from being split up when it is not needed.