Skip to main content

Moms of Black newborns often flagged to police over drug use claims

▶ Watch Video: Investigating the controversial practice of drug testing pregnant patients in hospitals

The mothers of Black newborns are more likely than those of White newborns to be referred to law enforcement over allegations of substance use during pregnancy, according to The Marshall Project’s new analysis of child welfare data from eight states. The referrals are often the result of unreliable hospital drug tests performed at childbirth that are easily misinterpreted and produce false positive results as much as half of the time, which can prompt incorrect reporting to child welfare and law enforcement authorities.

Medical centers can report claims of pregnancy substance use to child welfare agencies, which can then refer the cases to law enforcement. Using birth rates in eight states, The Marshall Project estimated that Black babies are around two and a half times more likely than White babies to be flagged to law enforcement over claims of substance exposure in the womb. The analysis is the first to measure the overrepresentation of Black newborns among these referrals and the disproportionate impact they can have on Black families.

During a seven-year period, child welfare agencies across 20 states referred the parents of more than 25,000 Black newborns to police or prosecutors over alleged pregnancy substance use, The Marshall Project found. In eight of those states that had enough detailed data to compare estimated rates of referrals across Black and White children, all showed referrals were more common when the cases involved Black families.

Child welfare data on newborns of other races and ethnicities was not provided to The Marshall Project.

In Oklahoma, an estimated 1 in 11 Black babies were flagged to law enforcement over accusations of pregnancy substance use. In Minnesota, the families of Black newborns were estimated to be about three and a half times more likely than those of White newborns to be referred to police.

Child welfare agencies can refer allegations to police or prosecutors even when their investigations clear the parents or find no evidence that they posed an urgent threat. The Marshall Project found this occurred with a considerable number of Black families. In a seven-year period, more than 14,000 cases involving Black newborns were sent to law enforcement agencies in the eight states, even though child welfare authorities did not conclude that child abuse or neglect occurred.

The data does not spell out why cases against Black families are more common, but decades of research spanning the country has shown that racial disparities are embedded through every step of the child welfare process. Black women are more likely than White women to be drug tested at childbirth and reported to child welfare authorities, more likely to be investigated and more likely to be separated from their children, previous studies have found.

The data also does not specify what happens after cases are referred to law enforcement. Many of these reports are filed away without consequence. But other mothers have been shamed, surveilled, arrested, jailed, prosecuted and left with enduring trauma.

The referrals to police likely contribute to higher rates of depression and stress among Black postpartum women, exacerbating the Black maternal mortality crisis, said Miriam Mack, senior legal counsel at the advocacy group Movement for Family Power.

“It’s not about what you do, what substances you use, how much you’re using, whether you’re using, but it’s about who you are,” Mack said. “It’s about the simple fact that you are Black and you have given birth in the hospital.”

The Marshall Project has previously documented the harms to Black mothers who are drug tested during childbirth. Ayanna Harris-Rashid was arrested in South Carolina in 2021 after testing positive due to legal CBD gummies and a topical hemp-based ointment she took during her pregnancy. Amid the stress of criminal charges and incarceration, she lost the ability to breastfeed her newborn son.

Melissa Robinson, a Black elementary school librarian in Alabama, was investigated in 2024 after she had a false positive test for cocaine. The hospital barred Robinson from breastfeeding and child welfare officials told her she could not be alone with her baby, even though a second hospital drug test disproved the allegation against her. The case was ultimately closed due to insufficient evidence.

“To have such a beautiful experience tainted by something like that, it’s difficult,” Robinson told The Marshall Project in 2024. “Truthfully, it’s turned me into somebody different.”

Melissa Robinson with her daughter Lyriq
Melissa Robinson with her daughter Lyriq in Huntsville, Alabama, in 2024. 

Lynsey Weatherspoon for The Marshall Project

To conduct the analysis, The Marshall Project obtained seven years of data, stretching between mid-2018 and mid-2024, from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, which stores the information from state child welfare agencies. The eight states with more detailed numbers on newborn race and referrals were California, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. 

Child welfare officials in the eight states were allowed to review the findings. In Oklahoma, officials called the analysis “misleading and inaccurate” because it excludes children who have a multiracial parent if the other parent is not Black or White, which could overestimate how often law enforcement referrals take place. The Marshall Project conducted a subsequent analysis and found that the overrepresentation of Black newborns was consistent in the data whether the children of multiracial parents were Black, White or neither. Read more about the methodology here.

Seven of the states included in the analysis have policies requiring child welfare to automatically share cases of pregnancy substance use with law enforcement, even if the allegations are unfounded. 

When child welfare workers review a claim of drug exposure in the womb, they may investigate and find no evidence of child abuse or neglect, or decide the risk to the child is low enough to offer support services rather than conduct an investigation. Even so, the agency can be required to share these allegations with law enforcement, potentially leading to unnecessary surveillance, arrest or prosecution. Those referrals typically occur before child welfare has completed its reviews of the cases.

For the eight states in the analysis, among families referred to law enforcement, child welfare agencies were 25% more likely to dismiss or divert pregnancy substance use allegations made against Black families compared to White families. The difference was especially stark in Kentucky, where child welfare workers were 38% more likely to close a case without a finding of abuse or neglect when the newborn was Black. The findings suggest that Black parents are more likely to be reported to authorities over substance use claims that are unfounded or pose a low safety risk to their children.

The Marshall Project interviewed more than a dozen doctors, researchers and parent advocates to understand why Black newborns were overrepresented in the data. Most pointed to the fact that hospitals disproportionately drug test and report Black mothers and babies. Racial bias and poverty also play a role, with providers more likely to report someone that they perceive as lacking financial or social support, even if the parents may be competent and caring, doctors said.

Another reason may stem from changes in state and federal policies. Drug testing of pregnant women began in the 1980s during the crack epidemic, when fears of “crack babies” spurred state laws classifying substance use during pregnancy as child abuse or neglect. During the opioid epidemic in the early 2000s, hospital drug testing policies expanded again, with Congress directing states to identify all newborns “affected by” substance use, whether illegal or not. As a result, more parents are now reported to child welfare over positive tests triggered by legal substances, including prescribed medications, over-the-counter products and marijuana. 

Two cases from a single hospital near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, show how a positive drug test for marijuana can produce vastly different outcomes. 

When a Black mom and her newborn at Tidelands Waccamaw Community Hospital tested positive for THC in July of 2024, the hospital reported her to the state Department of Social Services, which referred her to law enforcement, Georgetown County Sheriff’s records show. A positive THC test can be triggered by legal substances, such as a CBD gummy. The documents do not indicate that officers interviewed the mother or attempted to identify the cause of the positive test before arresting her days later on a charge of child abuse. 

Two months later, a White woman giving birth tested positive at the same hospital for the same substance. This time, however, a child welfare investigator told police the agency did not want to press charges. The patient had told the investigator that she tested positive because of a single CBD edible she had purchased at a store. The child welfare agency “believes the offender is not a threat to the victim,” the police report said. Police did not arrest the mother.

The community hospital and sheriff’s department did not respond to requests for comment about the two cases. The South Carolina Department of Social Services declined to comment.

Marijuana testing floods the system with families who are not likely to harm their children, said Joseph Ryan, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan. He co-authored a study that found that the parents of Black newborns were more likely to be reported to child welfare over positive marijuana tests but rarely went on to commit child abuse or neglect.

“There’s really no reason to be testing for THC,” Ryan said. Though he said alcohol has far more detrimental effects on a developing fetus than marijuana, hospitals rarely screen for it. Reducing testing and reporting of marijuana would lessen the disproportionate number of Black families getting reported into the system, he said.

Attorneys and advocates for parents said the data may also obscure the reality of many cases that end up dismissed or that go through a process known as “alternative response.” During a child welfare investigation or assessment, parents may be asked to submit to drug tests and home inspections, to turn over their children to other caregivers or to agree to complete what are considered voluntary services in exchange for avoiding a formal child abuse or neglect case. These agreements can come with an implicit or explicit threat — if parents do not sign, child welfare may open an investigation or petition a judge to remove their child anyway. Many parents quickly agree, often without a lawyer present.

In Kentucky, such agreements are common and can lead to weeks or months of surveillance or separation, said civil rights attorney Paul Hill, who has represented people who signed prevention plans under threat of their children being sent to foster care. One of Hill’s clients was required to be supervised by her husband after testing positive at her child’s birth due to poppy seeds, according to court records.

A spokesperson for Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services said the agency has seen “firsthand the positive impact that prevention plans play in supporting families and kids across our commonwealth” and welcomes feedback on each case.

Even cases that are eventually dismissed cause distress during a crucial bonding time and open the door to further intervention, advocates said.

Mothers can find themselves subject to new child welfare cases later on in their children’s lives if they struggle with their mental health or have trouble paying bills. Child welfare or police reports documenting the original substance use allegations from childbirth could be cited as evidence, even if the claims were unfounded. The hospital reports also erode trust between providers and patients, leading many parents to avoid medical care altogether.

For Brittany Pettway, a Black mom in Kentucky, the experience of being drug tested and reported on two separate occasions after she gave birth has made her scared to have another child.

“I think race does play a big part in it,” she said. “It just seems like they already think we’re unfit and unstable.”

All of this worsens health outcomes, experts say. The stress of an investigation, even one ultimately closed, can trigger relapse into substance use or otherwise harm the health of the mother or infant — in a healthcare landscape in which Black women are already at higher risk of death

“The sheer fear of living with being investigated by the police, of living with being investigated by CPS — that in and of itself is the harm,” said Mack, the attorney at Movement for Family Power. “The impact that that has on a person’s body, a person’s health, a person’s well-being, that’s the harm.”

For many advocates and doctors, the solutions are clear. Leading medical groups advise against routine drug testing of pregnant women. Such tests do not prove that someone has an addiction and are often conducted without a patient’s knowledge or consent. 

Earlier this year, following The Marshall Project’s reporting, the state of New Jersey began requiring hospitals to confirm drug screens with more precise tests prior to sharing results with child welfare authorities. The state also instructed providers to obtain informed consent before drug testing pregnant patients and confirmed that a positive result alone does not constitute child abuse or neglect. The state now has an anonymized form for hospitals to share information about substance-affected infants without triggering a child welfare investigation.

Instead of funding the punishment of women through costly child welfare or criminal cases, advocates said officials should fund family support services, such as drug treatment programs that offer childcare and food assistance.

“These places, they’re not invested in Black parenting. They’re not even invested in Black motherhood survival,” said Erin Miles Cloud, a civil rights attorney who has represented mothers with child welfare cases. Cloud said the default response to these structural problems has become punishment. “We should all be worried about a system that is set up to divert people to the police.” 

Methodology

The Marshall Project analyzed data that state child welfare agencies voluntarily submit to the federal Children’s Bureau, which is part of the Department of Health & Human Services. That information is provided to and stored by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), a federal contractor. Upon request, NDACAN staff provided The Marshall Project with data from fiscal years 2018 to 2024 showing the number of prenatal substance exposure cases reported to state child welfare agencies, as well as the number shared with police or prosecutors.

The data detailed the number of allegations involving Black and White newborns and whether child welfare deemed the babies to be either “victims” of abuse or neglect or “nonvictims.” A newborn is considered a victim if abuse or neglect is substantiated or suspected by child welfare workers. Nonvictim cases occur when child welfare does not substantiate a claim of maltreatment or redirects the family to support services rather than opening an investigation.

Due to low or unreliable counts, no other racial or ethnic categories beyond White or Black were provided. As a result, these other categories were excluded from our analysis.

Over the seven-year period, 20 states submitted at least one year of referral data on Black newborns. We added up all these available counts to produce a minimum total of how many cases against Black families were referred to law enforcement during this time.

NDACAN did not provide numbers when annual counts fell below 10 individuals to protect people’s privacy. Seven states had no suppressed numbers in any years. In California, there were four years of data without any suppressed values. We included non-suppressed values in these eight states in a more detailed race analysis. 

In the NDACAN data, children can be included in more than one race category and thus can appear in the aggregated totals for both Black and White newborns. State child welfare agencies can follow different practices for collecting this race information from families. We also incorporated data from CDC WONDER on the number of children born each federal fiscal year, which runs from October to September, to estimate how often the families of newborns of each race have a case of pregnancy substance use shared with law enforcement. A small number of suppressed values, when counts fell below 10, were excluded from the birth totals. Using the CDC WONDER data, which collects race information from parents’ birth certificates, we counted a child as Black if at least one parent was Black, and a child as White if at least one parent was White.

Our calculations excluded newborns whose parents were listed as “more than one race” in the CDC data if the other parent was not White or Black because the data did not specify the races of multiracial parents. As a result, the analysis could overestimate the frequency of referrals or exaggerate the difference in referral rates between Black and White newborns. The Marshall Project calculated minimum and maximum estimates of birth counts in each state by assigning all mixed-race parents as Black but not White, and then White but not Black. We found that the overrepresentation of Black newborns was consistent in the data whether the children of multiracial parents were Black, White or neither.

 Classifying all multiracial parents as only Black substantially lowers the estimates of potential racial disparity, because Black birth counts are relatively small in most states. Counting multiracial parents as only White produces maximum estimates but does not shift the results as dramatically, because the number of White babies born in each state is relatively large. These calculations provide a range of possible values, but without clear data specifying how many multiracial parents are Black and White, they don’t indicate where within the range the actual values fall.

The analysis of referral rates by race can only produce estimates rather than exact results because of a lack of precision in the birth data. For this reason, and because the data only covers eight states, The Marshall Project does not encourage ranking or comparing results across states.

The analysis does not examine trends occurring during the seven-year period of data. States could have experienced changes in referral rates and nonvictim case rates over this time period.

The Marshall Project consulted with several scholars on this analysis, including Dr. Mishka Terplan, a Maryland OB-GYN and leading researcher on substance use disorders during pregnancy. We also provided the data and analysis to the eight state child welfare agencies and NDACAN before publication and gave them a chance to share feedback.

The quality and comprehensiveness of the NDACAN data varies by state. Read more about The Marshall Project’s work with the data here.


This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletters, and follow them on InstagramTikTokReddit and Facebook

En un Brasil polarizado entre Lula y Flávio Bolsonaro, los partidos intentan formar alianzas pero triunfa la neutralidad

El cierre de la temporada de convenciones partidarias el 5 de agosto sirvió no solo para concluir el diseño de las candidaturas presidenciales, sino también para revelar un nuevo fenómeno que debe ser estudiado por la ciencia política brasileña. Por definición, los partidos políticos deberían tomar partido o posición en una disputa tan importante como la del futuro presidente del país, ya sea con candidaturas propias o apoyando a un nombre lanzado por otra agrupación. En 2026, sin embargo, lo que predominó fue lo opuesto: la neutralidad.A excepción del presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (del Partido de los Trabajadores), candidato a la reelección apoyado por otros seis partidos, todos de izquierda, ningún otro aspirante al Palacio del Planalto logró atraer a otra sigla. Con esto, todos los adversarios del petista disputarán la elección en listas puras; el último en anunciar el nombre del vicepresidente fue Flávio Bolsonaro (el Partido Liberal), quien eligió dentro del partido al diputado de Alagoas Alfredo Gaspar.El candidato del PL intentó, pero no logró reproducir la alianza que apoyó a su padre. En 2022, el entonces presidente Jair Bolsonaro contaba con el apoyo del PP (Partido Progresista) y Republicanos, que ahora prefirieron mantenerse neutrales, a pesar de la posibilidad de indicar el nombre de una mujer para competir por la vicepresidencia; en el primero, la opción era la senadora y exministra Tereza Cristina, y en el último está afiliada la expresidenta de la Caixa Econômica Federal Daniella Marques, muy cercana al exministro de Economía Paulo Guedes.La alianza de Lula vuelve a tener a Geraldo Alckmin (Partido Socialista Brasileño o PSB) como candidato a vicepresidente y suma siete partidos. Es la coalición más amplia que la izquierda brasileña ha formado al inicio de una disputa presidencial: nunca antes el PT, el PSB, el Partido Democrático Laborista (PDT), el Partido Socialismo y Libertad (PSOL), el Partido Comunista de Brasil (PC do B), el Partido Verde (PV) y Rede habían comenzado juntos una primera vuelta.En contrapartida, Lula no logró ir más allá del campo de la izquierda este año como lo hizo en 2022, cuando partidos más al centro e incluso exadversarios —empezando por Alckmin— se habían sumado a la alianza. Cuatro años atrás, el palanque también contaba con Solidariedade, Avante, Agir y PROS. Avante prefirió este año tener candidatura propia, con el escritor y psiquiatra Augusto Cury, autor de libros best-seller de ficción y autoayuda.Para quienes no están habituados a las articulaciones de la política brasileña, como el público extranjero, puede resultar extraño pensar en un candidato a presidente que tenga a una persona de otro partido en la fórmula. Pero en Brasil esto es casi una regla para ampliar la base de apoyo político e iniciar negociaciones para la composición de un futuro gobierno.Estas negociaciones ocurren no solo en las disputas mayoritarias —cargos de presidente, gobernador, alcalde y senador—, sino también en las proporcionales, sistema por el cual se eligen diputados federales, diputados estatales y concejales, también con miras a la construcción de un futuro gobierno de coalición.En 2017, sin embargo, un cambio en la legislación prohibió las coaliciones para los cargos del Legislativo en los tres niveles de gobierno (federal, estatal y municipal), para contener distorsiones que ocurrían frecuentemente en el pasado: en una alianza entre partidos de espectros políticos diferentes, por ejemplo, el elector elegía a un candidato a diputado más a la izquierda del partido A, pero ese voto ayudaba a elegir a un parlamentario de centro o incluso de derecha del partido B, y viceversa, debido a coaliciones que podían reunir hasta una docena o más de siglas.Fuera de eso, Brasil pasó a adoptar una cláusula de desempeño para que los partidos tengan acceso al financiamiento público de sus actividades, participación en el horario de propaganda gratuita en radio y televisión, además de asegurar el derecho a ser invitados a debates en esos medios de comunicación.Como las bancadas federales son el criterio para esta barrera, nada más justo que cada sigla dispute espacio de forma individual, y no en coalición. La excepción es si dos o más partidos deciden formar una federación, con una duración mínima de cuatro años (dos ciclos electorales). Siglas con riesgo de extinción o de no superar la barrera legal adoptaron esta estrategia de supervivencia.De los diez partidos y federaciones más grandes de Brasil, solo tres tendrán candidatos propios a la presidencia y dos se aliaron con Lula. Los otros cinco prefirieron la neutralidad. En esta lista están União Brasil y PP, federación con casi 100 parlamentarios, Republicanos, MDB, Podemos y la federación PSDB-Cidadania.Todos estos partidos lanzaron candidatura propia a la presidencia o participaron en una coalición de este tipo, en medio de la polarización entre Lula y Bolsonaro. Con la tendencia de repetirse el escenario, ahora entre el petista y el hijo del expresidente, los partidos prefirieron el pragmatismo de fortalecer las bancadas en el Congreso a arriesgarse contra los dos polos políticos. En una disputa reñida, comprometerse temprano con uno de los lados significa apostar por quien puede perder — mientras que no comprometerse preserva el poder de negociación.Es necesario considerar también el historial de los partidos en Brasil. Muchas de estas siglas tienen divisiones internas: los políticos de los estados del centro-sur del país son más conservadores, mientras que los de la región Nordeste tienen mayor proximidad con los petistas. Arbitrar estas divergencias es más costoso para los dirigentes nacionales que simplemente liberar a los correligionarios para apoyar al candidato presidencial que sea más popular en sus reductos.En la campaña, la neutralidad también trae otro efecto beneficioso para Lula en comparación con los adversarios: solo cuatro candidaturas tendrán derecho a participar en la propaganda electoral. El petista se quedó con la mayor porción del tiempo, seguido por Flávio Bolsonaro, Ronaldo Caiado (PSD) y Augusto Cury.Aquí cabe otra explicación para el lector fuera de Brasil, sobre un mecanismo poco común en otros presidencialismos de la región. Las enmiendas parlamentarias son porciones del Presupuesto federal cuya destinación es definida individualmente por diputados y senadores. Buena parte de ellas es de ejecución obligatoria — el llamado presupuesto impositivo, creado justamente para quitarle al presidente el poder de liberar o retener esos recursos según la lealtad del parlamentario.En la práctica, cada congresista lleva hoy una cartera propia de dinero público para obras y alcaldías de su base electoral. El presupuesto de 2026 reserva cerca de R$ 61.000 millones (aproximadamente US$ 11.938 millones) para ese gasto, de los cuales R$ 37,8 mil millones (aproximadamente US$ 7.400 millones) son impositivos.Fue este engranaje el que transformó a la bancada, y no al ministerio, en el activo más valioso de la política brasileña — y que invirtió la aritmética de las alianzas. Un partido grande y sin compromiso presidencial negocia con quien gane; un partido grande dentro de una fórmula derrotada corre el riesgo de quedar cuatro años en el ostracismo.La campaña que comienza ahora será, por eso, más polarizada que la de 2022. Pero la cuenta política más dura no se paga en octubre. Se paga en 2027, cuando el presidente electo abra la primera negociación con un Congreso que pasó toda la elección sin deberle nada.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story