Why Was a 3-Year-Old in South Dakota Forcibly Catheterized as He Screamed in Pain?

Imagine the Department of Social Services threatens to remove your child from your custody unless you agree to have his urine collected. Under duress, you consent— only to watch hospital staff pin your three-year-old down and forcibly catheterize him as he screams in pain. Two days later, he is still in pain. You take him back to the hospital, where he is diagnosed with a staph infection in his penis.

This is not a hypothetical situation. One day this past winter, police and officials from the Department of Social Services (DSS) in Pierre, South Dakota, arrived at a home to arrest a man on suspicion of a probation violation. Because he tested positive for drugs, his girlfriend was told by DSS that her children would be removed from the home if she did not consent to having their urine tested. Because of that threat, she agreed to the test, but since her youngest child is not toilet-trained, DSS forced him to undergo the catheterization.

The distraught mother contacted the ACLU, and we were shocked by her story. It’s hard to imagine circumstances that would lead child welfare officials to think it was a good idea to catheterize a 3-year-old, subjecting a vulnerable child to trauma and injury, because of an investigation into potential drug use by an adult. Anyone who has spent any time around young children knows there certainly are other methods available to collect a sample from the child — like, for example, giving the child water or juice and waiting an hour. Or, DSS could have rightly concluded that the risk to the very child they were purporting to protect was just not worth it.

This incident raises a multitude of practical, moral, and constitutional questions. Collecting bodily fluids from a toddler to gather evidence against an adult member of the household is simply unreasonable. Period. Second, catheterization of anyone — adults and children alike — is an incredibly invasive procedure that should only be employed when absolutely necessary. Additionally, the compelled production of bodily fluids is a search under the Fourth Amendment, which, absent consent, requires a warrant supported by probable cause. In this case, the DSS conducted the search without a warrant, without legal justification, and without judicial oversight. (To be clear, when a parent “consents” to the collection of her children’s bodily fluids under the threat of losing her children, that consent is invalid.)

The ACLU of South Dakota has written to DSS to demand that they stop catheterizing children and provide explanations. We want to know why this search was conducted, why the catheterization was permitted, and who made the decision to have this child tested. Further, we have asked the DSS to release any written policies regarding searches of children and catheterization.

Forcibly catheterizing anyone — let alone a 3-year-old — to collect evidence is barbaric at worst and unconstitutional at best. No child, let alone one suspected of being a victim of abuse or neglect, should be subjected to such trauma, indignity, and abuse.

We want answers. We have no intention of letting DSS get away with this barbaric practice without accountability.

This post has been edited to clarify that it was DSS, not the police, that ordered the catheterization.

View comments (103)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

I think there are certainsocial services employees who have absolutely

Libby

As I was saying social service employees are generally treated worse than their clientele, paid less than the majority of other fields & have little chance of being promoted, staying in the same position for years. With that said, there is a certain person who is not cut out to be treated this way & are power hungry & therefore, do all kinds of crazy nonsensical shit because it makes them feel important. The flip side is the social service worker who doesn't do shit because of being under paid & under appreciated. This is extremely difficult work that causes compassion fatigue more times than not. None of this is justification for this type of human behavior. However, if something isn't done systemically soon, this field is going to breed a hell of a lot more of these power mongers or even worse, those who do nothing when a childs life is in danger. Signed, compassion fatigued myself...

Anonymous

What "evidence" could they possibly be looking for? I mean if this was a molestation case i might see a need for a urine sample from a child, but drug evidence against an adult user? How on earth does this make sense? And even in the case where the social worker may have been worried the child somehow got into said drugs, absolutely zero need for a foley.

Anonymous

I agree that the child should have been tested another way, but there is value to testing children. You would be shocked to see how often children test for high levels of drugs in their system. If the levels are extremely high it can indicate the possibility that the child would have had to ingest the drugs or have had prolonged exposure in a confined setting. Both of these things up the risk factors for children living in these homes. Some argue knowing parents do drugs should be enough to remove children so testing is not needed...disagree. There are lots of people with substance abuse issues that are good parents. Even in cases with parents who are barely making it; the fundamental question is - Does the risk of children remaining in a home where they are exposed to drugs outweigh the harm of the trauma caused when children are removed from their family? Drug testing can help clarify the risk.

Anonymous

savages!

Anonymous

They could have put a urine collection cup in his diaper or even just used rubber underwear. That is how they collect a urine sample in the NICU. This is terrible.

Colleen

Presumingly, the justification was that no warrant was needed by probation to collect bodily fluids from the probationer. Therefore, perhaps, probation believes it can search anyone or anything with the probationer's sphere of influence. Completely wrong. But I would not be surprised.

Colleen

Presumingly, the justification was that no warrant was needed by probation to collect bodily fluids from the probationer. Therefore, perhaps, probation believes it can search anyone or anything with the probationer's sphere of influence. Completely wrong. But I would not be surprised.

Anonymous

Regarding the catheteizarion being a doctor's order. Urinary catheterization is a medical procedure which can't be done by people unlicensed to do so. A doctor would order it, then a nurse would do it or delegate to a cna. If not, the person doing it could face criminal charges.

Beverly

In most States it would have to be a RN or better to cath. I assisted in catheterizations, but the actual procedure is a sterile procedure not in a CNA scope of practice.

Pages

Stay Informed