[CuBajan33]

My sister has smoked marijuana throughout her entire pregnancy, from the moment of conception, to almost the day the baby was born. Someone called DSS on her and the father out of concern for the baby boy who is now 5 months old, and DSS plans on performing a hair follicle test on the baby to detect any drugs in the baby's system. Will anything show up on the baby's test?

[excon]

Will anything show up on the the baby's test?

Hello C:

I don't think so. Even if they performed the test immediately after birth, I doubt the baby would test positive. THC does NOT cross the placenta, so the baby isn't exposed.

excon

[J_9]

Hello C:

I don't think so. Even if they performed the test immediately after birth, I doubt the baby would test positive. THC does NOT cross the placenta, so the baby isn't exposed.

excon

Sorry Exy. Pot DOES cross the placenta. And yes, the hair follicle test will most likely be positive. This is a highly debated issue, however I do drug tests weekly on babies and every baby that has been suspected has turned positive. The best way to do it is to get a urine test immediately after birth. Or test the meconium (first few poops after birth).

[DrBill100]

There is a substantial body of research relating to infant drug testing but almost all relates to the use of urine or meconium at the time of birth, as noted by J 9. There is little reported (in journals) on the age group you noted.

Related however is a publication by Washington State Department of Health (June 2009) Guidelines For Testing and Reporting Drug Exposed Newborns in Washington State. This reports that hair testing (for infants) has a high sensitivity for cocaine and opiates but not for marijuana. (That is similar to adult drug hair testing). Likewise the testing is restricted to a few laboratories and has a high false positive rate. (p. 6)

So based on the limited information discovered it would seem that the hair drug test for marijuana is hit and miss. It certainly is in the adult population. Based on my experience there is a far greater chance that the infant may have detectable levels of systemic THC due to continued exposure to the smoke since birth. If so that exposure is easiest to detect in the urine or feces. The test you mention seems ill advised and unlikely to provide beneficial or actionable results.

[DrBill100]

Sorry Exy. Pot DOES cross the placenta. And yes, the hair follicle test will most likely be positive. This is a highly debated issue, however I do drug tests weekly on babies and every baby that has been suspected has turned positive. The best way to do it is to get a urine test immediately after birth. Or test the meconium (first few poops after birth).

J does your hospital ever use hair testing in infants or anyone under one yr for instance?

[CuBajan33]

Will the hair follicle test on the baby still be positive if the parent's haven't smoked AROUND the baby since he was born? Only when he was in the womb?

[J_9]

J does your hospital ever use hair testing in infants or anyone under one yr for instance?

We are a very small rural hosptial. We only do urine testing. Some of our larger hospitals do meconium regularly. Not sure about the hair testing though.

[DrBill100]

Will the hair follicle test on the baby still be positive if the parent's haven't smoked AROUND the baby since he was born? Only when he was in the womb?

The hair test is not sensitive to cannabis. Effective 22-24% based on the studies I reviewed. Plus it isn't used when other more reliable tests are available. Therefore there is lack of a track record. My entire experience involves no infant cases, so I'll draw from the adult population.

Hair testing for cannabis is effective only in heavy users. Infrequent and even moderate use is seldom detected in hair. Given these facts I think it is unlikely. I also doubt that the test is legally defensible. For instance, the few comparative studies establish a false positive rate at 14% and up. That is unacceptable by any standard of reliability. There is also the question of hair structure and growth rate (infant v adult).

While I can't guarantee negative results I suspect that it will be negative. Positive or negative, if this test were to appear on my desk, an attempt to infer in utero contamination by testing an infant 5-months delayed with a questionable methodology, it would be summarily rejected. So, once again, the process seems ill advised and unlikely to provide beneficial or actionable results.

[CuBajan33]

You guys are all AWESOME! Thanks SO much for all of your answers and input! They were truly very helpful to me! My biggest concern is that my younger sister and her boyfriend begin to take some parenting tips from me and how I am trying to raise my 7 year old daughter. I love my sister dearly, but my main concern is for the health and safety of my 5 month old nephew.

[DrBill100]

In clarification of the foregoing:

You stimulated my interest. Thank you.

After further investigation I was able to confirm my vague memories in relation to hair growth and characteristics (prenatal through postnatal-first few weeks). The hair growth cycles are markedly different both in region, timing and composition from adult hair. Therefore, a 5th month retrograde interpretation of prenatal drug use could not provide scientifically veriifiable or productive information. As previously stated the test you mention is ill advised and purposeless.

Should you desire further information on the subject please refer to Infant Hair Growth which provides a good overview of the subject matter in general and serves, I believe, to corroborate my opinion.

Thanks again, keeps me thinking. Let us know!