Pubdate: July 20, 1999 Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL) Copyright: 1999 The Sun-Times Co. Contact: http://www.suntimes.com/index/ Author: Mary Mitchell DCFS DROPS BALL IN OLISON CASE If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd certainly think someone is conspiring against Tina Olison. Olison, you might recall, is the former drug addict who is trying to regain custody of "Baby T." After a protracted court battle with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Olison was awarded custody of her 3-year-old son in March. Kane County Judge Judith M. Brawka--who was assigned to the case only after Olison fought to have the case heard outside of Cook County--ruled that Baby T should be returned to Olison within 12 months. As part of a social services plan, Olison was ordered to undergo regular drug testing. Then on May 19, up pops a hot urine sample. According to testing done by Family Guidance Center, a methadone distribution center DCFS contracted with to test Olison, her urine sample tested positive for opiates. Confident the reading was an error, Olison's attorney immediately asked that the sample be sent to another laboratory for retesting. It wasn't until a month later that DCFS agreed to outside testing. Last week, a laboratory in Philadelphia examined the same specimen and determined Olison was drug free--just as she claimed. No wonder Olison thinks there's a conspiracy. As soon as the laboratory gave the erroneous results, she found herself back in Juvenile Court, with Public Guardian Patrick Murphy trying to persuade Judge Brawka to end Olison's unsupervised visits with Baby T. Instead, Brawka imposed weekly testing and required Olison to pass a "color strip" drug test before and after visits with Baby T. Olison also was warned that she would not be allowed to spend time with Baby T if there were any positive result. Talk about stress. Olison wasn't worried about the drug testing, but each new guideline means the single parent has even more appointments to fit into her daily schedule and more opportunities for something to go wrong. I suppose, though, that Olison is more fortunate than most. Her well-publicized battle with Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Appellate Court Justice Anne Burke brought her media scrutiny that other women in her predicament never get. I shudder to think what they must go through. Given the high-profile nature of Olison's case, it would seem unlikely that a reputable laboratory would make such a mistake. But according to Olison, she complained about the facility after her first appointment. "I knew this was going to happen," she told me. "They were too lax in their procedures. They just weren't professional." Apparently not. DCFS has had a contract with Family Guidance Center since 1993, but no longer sends Olison there for drug testing. However, it still refers other women to the center. How many other women have received false positive readings from the same lab? More important, what has DCFS done to determine whether a false positive reading might have resulted in an unfair ruling against another mother? There is another problem. Shouldn't at least one social worker have been hesitant to send recovering drug addicts into a methadone clinic? I know recovering addicts who run from people, places and things that remind them of their dependent state. The last place they want to be is anywhere addicts are receiving drugs, even legal ones. But this is the kind of place DCFS would choose to send Olison, knowing her drug test results could determine whether she is ever really reunited with her son. As I said, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. But I do believe there are too many people at DCFS charged with making life-changing decisions for our children who are both uncaring, incompetent or both. - --- MAP posted-by: manemez j lovitto