Is There Such Thing as a “Functional” Meth User, Allowing Custody to Remain?
In the California case of In re. Alexzander C., the California Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and allowed the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services to remove the 11 and 14 year old children from the home in order “to protect them from substantial danger.”
Richard, the father, was a good father, except for one problem: he used meth four times a day while holding the same job for 27 years. He provided for his family and made sure his three (3) children (now11,14, and 18) had healthy food, a clean home, and a good education.
His wife, and mother of the children, was a meth user as well. Both hid their addictions from the children, who never knew their parents were meth addicts. Richard kept the drugs away from the children at all time and never used needles. He kept the drugs in his wallet at all times.
At the trial court hearing, Richard argued that he was a “functional meth user”. The court, in their ruling, did not buy that argument, stating there is no such thing as a “functional meth user.” The Appellate court agreed with the trial court.
Although the children apparently were never subjected to the drug use, the appeals court said they had assimilated their parents’ attitude about it. They were aware their mother had lost custody before, but did not recognize the dangers of addiction.