Nashua, NH DCYF Performs ILLEGAL Hair Follicle and Saliva Drug Testing

Thank's to a fellow fighter for Family Rights, I was just made aware that hair follicle and saliva drug testing in child custody cases and visitation is ILLEGAL.
Again, NH DHHS/DCYF fails to follow Federal Guidelines in the child custody case of my granddaughter, stolen by NH DCYF  on 10/03/2005.
My daughter was called in to the Nashua, NH DCYF office between Oct. 2005 and the end of Dec. 2005, to visit with her newborn daughter.Upon arrival, she was met by the DCYF Assessment worker Melissa Deane, DCYF Supervisor Tracey Gubbins, DCYF Lawyer Kate McClure, the Foster strangers with my granddaughter and a worker from Quest Diagnostics.
My daughter was informed by Melissa Deane that she would be cutting off strands from my daughter's long blonde hair in order to perform hair follicle drug testing. My daughter wasn't happy about them cutting her hair, but was forced into the procedure, not knowing it was illegal and unconstitutional and told if she refused the test would be considered positive. When the (EDIT) Quest Diagnostics worker Assessment worker was done cutting her hair, she was taken into the restroom and forced to provide a urine  specimen and was then allowed a short visit with her daughter, while all eyes were focused on her and her daughter.
About a week later, the result's came back. The hair follicle drug test showed nothing, but for some strange reason the urine specimen came back positive  for every illegal drug known to man. Odd, but the specimen showed no methadone, even though my daughter was enrolled in a Methadone Program, given doses every morning.
From research I've done in the past, hair follicle drug testing is SUPPOSED to be the most accurate drug test performed. That drugs used from years passed come up positive in the hair and hair follicle drug testing is extremely expensive.
Shortly after the hair follicle test was performed, my daughter was again called in to the Nashua DCYF office, met by all the same people and I use that term loosely.
She was again faced with another ILLEGAL drug test. The Saliva test. She was forced to stick a swab in her mouth. The same swab which fell on the dirty DCYF floor after being told a clean one would not be provided. If she refused, the test would be considered positive and of course, it DID come back positive.
My question's:
Why did my daughter's Court-appointed Lawyer Brian Major allow DCYF to break Federal Law?
Why did Judge Bamberger, Judge Leary, Judge Tenney and Judge Raymond Cloutier allow my daughter's Constitutional Rights to be violated?
Why weren't the illegal drug test's thrown out and the charges dropped against my daughter?
Why hasn't DCYF and their cohort's been prosecuted for ILLEGAL drug testing?
Why hasn't the Quest Diagnostics worker been prosecuted? She should have know what test's were allowed and what test's weren't.

Please read below. Seeing as I just found this information, the Statute of Limitations will now begin. Any taker's? We sure could use a Pro-Bono Lawyer, seeing as Nashua DCYF has taken away our livliehood, which is all their good for. Ruining peoples lives! Is there A Lawyer out there who want's to make a name for himself. A Lawyer who isn't afraid of NH DCYF!

HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TESTING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
D045854   COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
128 Cal. App. 4th 1181; 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 681; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3617; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 4927  April 29, 2005, Filed

   "The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) establish the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs and standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for Federal agencies, under authority of section 503 of ]Public Law] 100-71, 5 [United States Code] 7301 note, and [Executive Order] No. 12564.  The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 Fed.Reg. 11979), and revised on June 9, 1994 (59 Fed.Reg. 29908), and on November 13, 1998 (63 Fed.Reg. 63483)."  (69 Fed.Reg. 19644 (Apr. 13, 2003).)  

            As of this date, the federal government only allows urine tests under the Mandatory Guidelines, and, indeed, the Mandatory Guidelines were recently amended to place stricter controls on laboratories conducting urine tests.  (66 Fed.Reg. 43876-43882 (Aug. 21, 2001); 69 Fed.Reg. 19644-19645 (Apr.13 2004).)   The Mandatory Guidelines provide strict and comprehensive standards for urine testing.  (Ibid.)

PRIOR HISTORY:  [***1]  Proceedings in prohibition after superior court order compelling hair follicle drug test. Superior Court of San Diego County, No.ED24070, Alan Clements, Judge.

OVERVIEW: At issue was whether Cal. Fam. Code § 3041.5(a) permitted courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the trial court had determined engaged in habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances. In granting a writ of prohibition, the court held that §  3041.5(a) required any court-ordered drug testing to conform to federal drug testing procedures and standards, and at present those federal standards only allowed for urine tests. The language of § 3041.5(a) and its statutory history demonstrated that only urine tests were allowed because the language "least intrusive method of testing" in §  3041.5(a) did not show an intent by the legislature to allow any type of available testing. To pass constitutional muster, the intrusiveness of the testing had to be weighed, along with an individual's legitimate expectation of privacy, the nature and immediacy of the government concern at issue, and the efficacy of drug testing in meeting that concern. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that if and when additional tests were permitted, the least intrusive method had to be used.

OUTCOME: The court issued a writ of prohibition, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling a hair follicle drug test.

According to:
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
Mandatory Guidelines for Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Programs
See:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-26726.pdf

Subpart B-Specimens

Section 2.1 states that urine is the
only specimen that can be collected by
a Federal agency under the Guidelines
for its workplace drug testing program
to clarify that Federal agencies are
prohibited from collecting any other
type of specimen.


Don't worry DCYF, you WILL be held accountable! For ALL your deceitful and illegal practices!