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 (106)
Read the Terms of Use

Jacob lorensen

Forcibly cetheterizing is unconstitutional.

Forcibly chopping off the foreskin is not.

Wow. Just wow.

Rockycz

Right? Forced circumcision of minors is a violation of human rights.

Anonymous

Just so ppl know... as a nurse.... there are collection pouches that can be attached to a young child that isn't trained to go. They have these so they are not catheterized! The are like a plastic bag that goes around the genitals and sticks like a bandaid. It is crazy that medical personnel would do this.... as we are taught to go least invasive to invasive if needed. That means you try other routes, or deem them not appropriate/applicable prior to doing the procedure. So if a person needed urine from a 3 yr old they should have attempted urination in a cup, or a pouche system collective device. And I believe a hair strand test would have been less invasive. Hell a blood collection test would have been less traumatic probably.... that's still invasive though!!! Shame on them....

Anonymous

So, when my daughter was 2 (she's now 18) they almost forced me to do this to her at Boston Medical Center, I think to test for a urinary tract infection. After I became really distraught by the idea of them forcing a tube into her urethra and they ended up using a diaper like thing to get a sample, but that was after they were actually threatening to call child services if I refused. There's no reason to do this, all that's necessary is to wait and a young child will produce a sample.

Anonymous

It's a ridiculous barbaric approach. Specially when collection bags like this http://a.co/7xgA7ja have already been invented, are non-invasive and already exist. Penis goes in the hole, the rim has a mild skin adhesive, its left on under the diaper. Keep the child hydrated and just WAIT. I guess these assholes were in a hurry.

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

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

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

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

Just to be fair, Why not have every child in the United States tested regardless of their parents background.
I am quite certain that rich peoples children have illegal substances in their systems just like poor parents children.
In fact, the Federal government should immediately seize and remove children who have been exposed to illegal substances while in the custody of their parents.

Pages

Stay Informed