Advocates urge Assembly to bar prenatal toxicology reports from the SCR and require informed consent

Legal advocates, medical‑ethics groups and defenders who represent parents in family court urged the Assembly to address how prenatal and newborn toxicology results are handled by hospitals and the State Central Register.

Witnesses from Legal Momentum, Bronx Defenders and the Children's Law Center described cases in which unconfirmed or non‑consensual drug tests led to SCR referrals and lengthy investigations. They argued that a presumptive positive toxicology result should not itself be used as a basis to register a report with SCR because the law requires a reasonable suspicion that a child has been harmed or is in imminent danger. Several witnesses referenced state policy and Department of Health guidance that substance use alone is not a statutory indicator of child abuse or neglect.

Senior advocates recommended two complementary actions: (1) pass an Informed Consent Act requiring health care providers to obtain oral and written consent before drug testing pregnant people or newborns and (2) adopt explicit statutory or regulatory language that prevents the SCR from registering reports based solely on unconfirmed toxicology. Legal advocates argued these steps would reduce racial disparities in testing and reporting and prevent unnecessary separation of parents and newborns.

OCFS and ACS witnesses acknowledged the problem and said the SCR already implements some guardrails and additional operator questions (for example, in educational neglect screening). They agreed to work with the committee on clarifying practice and data to ensure unconfirmed tests are not used as automatic grounds for investigation.