"Emily nearly lost access to her baby because of a hair strand test. Experts fear she's not alone" Article Reflection No. 182 (6/6/2026)

Article: “Emily nearly lost access to her baby because of a hair strand test. Experts fear she's not alone”

Reflection:

In the BBC article “Emily nearly lost access to her baby because of a hair strand test. Experts fear she's not alone,” journalists Anna Meisel, Mary O’Reilly, and Sanchia Berg discuss a mother’s journey in the conflict over her daughter and whether she is able to have custody of the latter. According to the article, the mother had previously utilized ketamine and participated in regular assessments to provide information about how she was not using the substance anymore. There is a debate over the hair strand testing practice, which in this case had stated that the mother was engaging in ketamine use. Meisel, O’Reilly, and Berg discuss how factors such as the level of absorbance can impact the hair strand testing; additionally, (e.g.) race does stand as a factor where larger drug absorption is possible in hair with greater quantities of melanin. After examining other various assessments, the mother was able to receive custody of her daughter; however, the article notes that there is expected discussion across different groups (e.g. Family Justice Council) over the topic. 

Given how looking at the other assessments contributed to the obtaining of the custody over the child, I wonder about the extent to which these processes (e.g. assessments) are accessible. Are they offered at relatively low prices and are they offered across a variety of regions across the nation? Additionally, a part of this article that especially stands out to me is the complexity of navigating through (e.g.) hair strand testing—considering the purpose of bringing justice, how can justice be credibly ensured in the midst of this discourse about the data-collecting method(s)?