Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

The inadequacy of current forensic thresholds in child protection cases.

Created on 01 Oct 2026

Authors

Szu-Han Chen, Jhong-Lin Wu, Guan-Yuan Chen, Frank Leigh Lu, Te-I Weng

Published in

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi. Sep 30, 2026. Epub Sep 30, 2026.

Abstract

Children may be exposed to illicit substances through passive environmental exposure, accidental ingestion, or intentional administration, often in the setting of caregiver drug use. We present a case series of children younger than 12 years of age who were referred to our toxicology center by judicial or child-protection authorities between January 1, 2023, and January 31, 2026. Urine and hair specimens were analyzed with validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Cases attributable to medically administered or legally prescribed substances and one fatal case were excluded. Among 54 children with confirmed positive findings, 30 were male, and the median age was 2.6 years. Known caregiver drug use was the most common indication for testing (66.7%), and most children (87.0%) were asymptomatic. Methamphetamine was the most frequently detected urinary substance (35 children [64.8%]; median concentration, 20.7 ng per milliliter; interquartile range, 11.1 to 69.6), and most median urinary concentrations were below applicable statutory confirmatory cutoffs. Six children underwent both urine and hair testing. Hair testing identified additional or more remote exposures, including N,N-Dimethylamphetamine, ketamine, and norketamine. These findings suggest that adult-derived forensic thresholds and urine testing alone may miss pediatric drug exposures that are clinically relevant to child protection.

PMID:
42816280
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 01 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 20
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement