Alcohol test

[May12345]

Since the Psychologist mentioning my husband drinking 75 units a week when he had to leave home in 2017 and him saying this is inaccurate the LA have asked him to do an alcohol test. He only received the email today.

We worked out that at the MOST in the last 6 months on some weeks he drank 50 units in that week which was if he drank four cans of guiness a night. Some weeks he wouldn't drink at all, other weeks 12 cans a week (21 units) but never the 75 that the Psychologist claimed.
I am worried that it will show alcohol and still a higher level than recommended and this could be used against him?
He had already decided to go tee total in 2019.

Would there be a repeat test if it does show drinking more than recommended amount?

His drinking has never caused an issue. Not associated with offending or anything and he holds down a full time job getting up at 4.30 for work.

His words were. Another nail in the coffin.

[Miserylovescompany2]

Hello May,

I do wonder if he is being honest with himself now - the comment "another nail in the coffin" could mean he has drank more than he has even shared with you?

If he refuses the test - CS will assume he is hiding something.

Do you know what type of test is being proposed? I would seek clarification on whether this is a one off test or whether this will be repeated at regular intervals.

I don't mean to state the obvious but I'd imagine the majority of people who do drink have drank more than usual simply because of the time of year - more social gatherings and celebrations. So a test now wouldn't necessarily be accurate and quite misleading.

I'd ask him if he has been 100% truthful and then take it from there. I know this is another hurdle you could do without.

Misery x

[May12345]

Hi Misery thanks for your reply.

His comment another nail in the coffin is because he feels this is another thing CS may hold against him. He gets anxiety and this can make him more negative or pessimistic than maybe he needs to be!

Obviously I don't live with him now but I'm pretty sure he's never drunk more than 4 cans a night (maybe as a youngster more on the odd night) but having 4 cans every night in a week would not be very often at all. Even if it had been 4 cans a night that is 50.4 units a week which is alot less than the Psychologist has claimed. The Psychologist said 4 cans a night but said this was 75 units a week and the beer he drinks is 1.8 units a can which is 50.4 units. But as I said before most weeks is less than that and some weeks none at all.

He definitely won't decline to do the test. His solicitor sent some information of the different types of tests and it's either hair or nails but if it's hair it's recommended that it's done also with blood or urine.

That's a good point about the time of year. I have no idea how long he will wait but I'm hoping it will be a wait as he's now tee total so that's got to help!

From the amount he's been drinking I'm expecting him to have result indications regularly drinking. The categories are green - barely or minimal drinking, orange - regularly drinking (which I expect most would come under that bracket) then red - excessive drinking which is 60 plus units. I'm confident he won't be in that especially as at the worst weeks it was 50.4 if he drank every night of a week. In the last twelve weeks there probably hasn't even been one week that he has had four cans every night.

But they may still say drinking any amount would make him at medium risk of reoffending. Probation have never told him he can't drink alcohol though so this does seem a bit OTT. But if being tee total is what he needs to do then he'll do it.

Thanks again X

[PerfectlySafeDad]

I can well understand his 'nail in the coffin' comment. They're dragging their feet (prime tactic #1), for CS it's all about finding ammunition and, as your husband states, he fears it's just that. It's all but certain to me now that social services only policy towards sex offenders of any kind (whatever that label might actually mean) is to keep them away from children for as long as they possibly can and look for every possible reason to back this up - but never to look for reasons why the 'offender' might NOT be a risk. The policy is so extreme and dogmatic that what it constitutes, in effect, is making a complete pariah of a person without objectivity or insight, without regard to compassion for them, and without even a well-weighed compassion for the children they claim to be protecting. In other words, it's persecution not safeguarding. That's what it's become.
If alcohol was cited by him or the investigation or probation as a factor in the offending, then the SS have an excuse for this line of work. If, so, your husband has to accept he's made a bit of a rod for his back, but the plus side is that if his test result is good and if he subsequently keeps to his T-total vow (which presumably would be tested too) then HE will have ammunition to argue for progress.
Reading between the lines, my feeling is it's just an excuse for foot-dragging. You see, as long as there is something like this in the pipeline, SS can declare their investigations and assessments as 'live' - in process - and no judge can ever rule against them while apparently doing their statutory duty, and the offender can't hope for contact with his kids until it's complete; and SS want to do their damnedest to have it complete with enough evidence to enforce no contact forever. It's almost impossible to call them to account for doing it badly or unfairly, since it's such a noble and important calling as recognized by everybody, and - like motorway service stations that extort you - they have the monopoly on this business. Basically, they think they're 'it' and they can never do wrong.
They call themselves an 'authority', but they're anything but, except in the badge sense of the word, and even that only in a tinpot way. They're a cowardly, mal-informed, deceiving, under-resourced, incompetently delegated, back-covering shambles. They let the nations children down badly.
The best thing your husband can do is go T-total anyway, even if there was no drink issue, and this along with his good work-record surely has to be positive stuff in his favour. Give them NOTHING, only constructive facts, and record everything.

[Miserylovescompany2]

I was reading some of the HCPC tribunal outcomes the other day. It made me think of the proposed alcohol test. I do wonder how SW would score? It's a stressful job, how many reach for the bottle as soon as they've crossed their threshold - does this impact on their own decision making capacity? Would we the parents be told if a SW had resrictions placed on their practice which were connected to their MH? Or would they be supported through this without judgement and a blind eye turned simply because they are sat on the other side of a fence.

My point is, we get to have a magnifying glass held over us and our every move scrutinised. Some SW seem to derive pleasure from finding something wrong rather than focusing on how they can help. Our children don't even seen to be the focus. So much time, energy and money is spent on nit picking. To think the worst in every possible scenario must taint their perceptions and their overall ability to write balanced reports.


Primum non nocere (first, do no harm) when did they (CS) lose sight of this?

[May12345]

Thanks PSD. As they haven't changed contact atm with the vast amount that the Psychologist claimed he was drinking I'm hoping it still won't change.

Thanks also Misery, you made some great points I'm certain SW drink 'regularly' like most adults likely do! The drinking is and was not linked to his offending in any way shape or form. His solicitor said that they would be concerned if any parent drank that amount but he's never drunk that at all I don't understand why the Psychologist has exaggerated it so much unless he miscalculated!

I feel like taking a test ourself before theirs to know whst it will say but I can't predict how 'concerned' CS will be if he is drinking even a small amount (or was as now teetotal).

Time will tell I guess...

[Fa235]

My children were put on CP plan due to my alcohol use. I openly admit that it was a problem and my children did not have the best mum they could have during that time. They tested my hair at 3 months which they told me would prove I had not been drinking. In fact this was not true it is an indicator of levels. It can not tell you how many units you have drunk. It can't actually prove that you have been abstinent either. I had a test in December (6 months after my last one). It has been a complete blow as it came back that I had been drinking chronically excessively. I am nearly 10 months sober and worked hard to ensure I remain so with this legal, acceptable addictive substance being available everywhere. Although, the tests are used it is clear they are not always correct as in my case. If I had known that this could have happened I would have made sure I had a blood test for alcohol at the same time. I am so distraught.

[May12345]

FA I'm so sorry this happened. The information my husband was sent by his solicitor said that a hair test should be accompanied by a blood test to show abstinence or something abd there's different tests that can indicate levels but one hair test alone isn't enough! What advice has your solicitor given or do you not have one?

We have decided to try to afford a test ourselves around the same time just incase theirs shows high. I don't feel I trust anyone they commission sadly....

[Miserylovescompany2]

Hello Fa235

Is there any way you can have the test done independently? Or have this repeated but also accompanied by a blood test. As this currently stands the test results will be very misleading to all who read them. If CS for example knowingly requested a test that wouldn't usually be undertaken without another running alongside to give a more accurate result then surely you are within your rights to challenge this?

If you don't have legal representation then I'd phone the free FRG number and ask their advice.

You have made such positive progress and this should be evidenced - unfortunately it will not be until you've proven the previous test to be inaccurate. You don't have a very big window of opportunity either if the test was done in December. Is there any viable way you could fund the test privately - I've no idea how much this would cost?