The forensic dilemma at the intersection of substance use disorder (SUD) and family law appears at several junctures: pregnancy, child welfare, custody and divorce, juvenile justice, and education. Pregnancy is an especially telling case, a physical state that invites a future orientation toward the unborn child. How a clinician interacts with a patient seeking SUD treatment is colored by state and federal law, each shaped by its own precedent and political identity. This article follows one such path, from a mother’s pregnancy through the child welfare system to the threat of losing her parental rights entirely.
Consider a 32-year-old woman with PTSD complicated by alcohol and opioid use disorders who learns she is pregnant at 12 weeks. She used intoxicating substances regularly before and after conceiving, but now wants to cut back and is motivated to deliver a healthy baby and raise the child on her own. She previously attempted SUD treatment programs on several occasions unsuccessfully. Matters are further complicated by a previous delivery of a baby with neonatal abstinence syndrome: that child now lives with a paternal grandmother, while the patient herself is staying with a friend. She comes to the clinic seeking treatment. Whether her disclosure leads to treatment or triggers judicial prosecution will depend entirely on the state in which she lives.
The general features of this patient’s case may lack nuance. However, parental substance use is now a factor in a large and growing share of child welfare involvement nationally. Among children entering out-of-home care, alcohol or drug use by a parent was cited as a condition of removal in 18.5% of cases in 2000. By 2021, that figure had risen to 39.1%. Estimates of substance use problems among parents already involved in the child welfare system range from 50 to 80 percent. Roughly one in eight children in the United States lives with at least one parent who has a substance use disorder.
The complicated picture painted by these numbers is further complicated by how legal and treatment systems run on separate timelines. As anyone working in health care will attest, SUD treatment runs on relapse, re-engagement, and the slow accumulation of stability. Child welfare, by contrast, runs on deadlines, because indefinite uncertainty — a defining feature of SUD — is itself considered a harm to the child. Federal law starts the clock running and expects both the patient and her treatment to keep pace with it.
When the clock runs out, drastic measures can be taken, including termination of parental rights, a permanent action that severs the legal relationship between parent and child entirely. Research on which parents with substance use disorders reach that endpoint identifies specific risk factors: having children at a younger age, parental incarceration, co-occurring mental illness, homelessness, parenting skill deficits, and domestic violence. These are the same factors associated with longer recovery times. Co-occurring psychiatric conditions require multidisciplinary care coordination that remains elusive in most systems, and housing instability is a strong predictor of treatment attrition. The clinical markers that foreshadow a protracted recovery path are, in many cases, the same markers associated with termination of parental rights.
The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (“ASFA”) sets a strict timeline: states must move to terminate parental rights once a child has spent 15 of the preceding 22 months in out-of-home care. The clock is cumulative, not continuous, and starts running at the initial court finding of maltreatment or 60 days after removal, whichever comes first. Exceptions exist for kinship placements, documented compelling reasons, or a state’s own failure to provide services, but the federal mandate favors permanency through adoption, reinforced by financial incentives for completed adoptions. The result is an expectation of rapid recovery that often collides with the slower pace of clinical stabilization.
ASFA responded to children remaining in foster care for years while agencies waited for parents to stabilize, itself a form of harm from prolonged uncertainty. But the law raises a question it does not answer: does a fifteen-month window reflect any realistic understanding of how parents actually recover?
Recurrence of use does not signal clinical failure. It is a hallmark of the disease itself, one that requires measuring progress in years rather than months. A parent who achieves temporary stability, relapses, and then re-engages in treatment is following the expected course of recovery, not straying from it. A fifteen-month timeline barely allows for one such cycle. It is a narrow window for recovery to begin, be recognized, and hold, especially when compounded by familiar barriers to treatment: waiting lists, lack of transportation, and a persistent shortage of social support.
In Santosky v. Kramer, a 1982 Supreme Court case, the Court held that severing the parent-child bond, an irreversible act, requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. ASFA preserved that high standard of proof while shortening the time families have to meet it, in part because children faced such long waits for a permanency decision. Some argue that ASFA shifted the priority, in practice, from family reunification to permanent placement.
Returning to the patient from our opening case, what happens after she discloses her substance use to a physician diverges along three paths, depending on the state. In some jurisdictions, the disclosure triggers a referral to treatment and supportive services. In others, it opens a child welfare investigation that can proceed toward removal. In still others, it produces nothing immediate at all, only a notation in a protective services file that can later be introduced as evidence of abuse if other problems surface. This third outcome is the least visible to the clinician and the most consequential to the patient, because it turns a clinical encounter into a record that will be read years later by someone with a different purpose.
A physician who identifies substance use in a pregnant patient faces an obligation that changes at the state line. Twelve states and the District of Columbia treat substance use during pregnancy as child abuse under civil child welfare statutes. Seven states and the District require health care professionals to report suspected prenatal drug use without that classification. Three authorize civil commitment on the basis of substance use in pregnancy, and twenty-five fund or have created treatment programs directed at pregnant women. These categories overlap unevenly, so a physician may be reporting into a system built to deliver services, or into one built to build a case.
In addition to knowing one’s own state reporting laws, clinicians should also have an understanding of what happens once a report is filed. This understanding will allow for more honest and constructive dialogue between the clinician and their patients who might be subject to such a report. That conversation is better had in advance of the reporting. In the months that follow, attendance at doctor’s appointments, adherence with treatment, and toxicology testing accumulate into a record that a reunification proceeding will eventually read, making contemporaneous documentation the only advocacy available before anyone asks for it. None of that is possible if care is declined at the outset. Refusing care to a pregnant patient is prohibited outright in several states, though such laws alone have not improved access. Similarly, the legitimate use of medications for opioid use disorders may not be treated as disqualifying for custody.
Pregnancy invites a future orientation, an instinct to plan for a child not yet born. The law moves on its own timeline, one that does not always align with the pace of clinical recovery. Nothing that follows a disclosure resolves the forensic dilemma with which this article began: a mandated reporter cannot choose whether to become a participant in the legal process, only how well informed that participation is. Knowing which outcome a given state’s laws produce, documenting contemporaneously, and telling a patient what to expect are the tools available within a system the clinician did not design.
Heidi Makhlouf, MS-4, is an MD candidate at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine pursuing a career in psychiatry. Her interests include serious mental illness, community and forensic psychiatry, and the intersection of behavioral healthcare systems, technology, and patient advocacy.
Elie G. Aoun, MD, is a psychiatrist in general, addiction, and forensic practice in New York on faculty at Columbia University and serves as Chief of Psychiatry at New York State’s Office of Mental Health Secure Treatment and Rehabilitation Center.
References
Adler, L. S. (2001). The meanings of permanence: A critical analysis of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 38(1), 1–84. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2023/02/38HarvJonLegis1.pdf
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115.
Anbalagan, S., Falkowitz, D. M., & Mendez, M. D. (2024). Neonatal abstinence syndrome. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551498/
42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E) (2018). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/675
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2021). Grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. https://cwig-prod-prod-drupal-s3fs-us-east-1.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/groundtermin.pdf
Davis, C. S., McNeer, E., & Patrick, S. W. (2022). Laws forbidding pregnancy discrimination in substance use disorder treatment are not associated with treatment access. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 16(3), 364–367. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000897
Hong, J. S., Ryan, J. P., Hernandez, P. M., & Brown, S. (2014). Termination of parental rights for parents with substance use disorder: For whom and then what? Social Work in Public Health, 29(6), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2014.884960
Legal Action Center. (2025, May 1). Cases involving discrimination based on treatment with medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). https://www.lac.org/assets/files/Cases-involving-denial-of-access-to-MOUD.pdf
Lipari, R. N., & Van Horn, S. L. (2017). Children living with parents who have a substance use disorder (The CBHSQ Report). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_3223/ShortReport-3223.pdf
McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689–1695. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.13.1689
National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare. (2023). Child welfare and substance use statistics. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/research/child-welfare-statistics/interactive-statistics-series/1-2-prevalence-aod-removal/
Santosky v. Kramer_, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
Seay, K. (2015). How many families in child welfare services are affected by parental substance use disorders? A common question that remains unanswered. Child Welfare, 94(4), 19–51.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2021). Substance use disorder treatment for people with co-occurring disorders (Advisory, HHS Publication No. PEP20-06-04-006). https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep20-06-04-006.pdf
