June 9, 2026

Bronx, NY – Today, The Bronx Defenders filed a federal lawsuit to stop officials from bringing back a program that gives New York City Family Court judges unlimited discretion to “ask” parents to urinate for a drug test in front of court staff. The program is called “voluntary,” but for parents facing the threat of family separation, it is functionally a demand: in the past, judges have punished parents who refused to take a test by unlawfully denying them the chance to bring their child home or keep them in their care.

The lawsuit argues that the program would coerce parents into accepting an unconstitutional and invasive drug test to ensure judges allow the facts of their cases to be heard. The program is scheduled to resume June 22, 2026.

“Labeling searches ‘voluntary’ does not make them voluntary,” said Trisha Trigilio, Director of Impact Litigation at The Bronx Defenders. “When a saying no means unlawful separation from your child, that is coercion. The Constitution requires more than pressure and unchecked discretion. Judges should not leverage the power of their offices to extract consent and circumvent the law. If the court wants a drug test, it can follow the law and issue a warrant based on probable cause.”

This lawsuit does not challenge lawful drug testing in Family Court. Drug testing already happens in family court cases. Judges can issue warrants for drug testing when there is probable cause, and drug testing can be included in service plans or ordered after legal findings are made.

The challenged program is different. It creates an unnecessary and unconstitutional parallel system that lets judges bypass existing legal safeguards and pressure parents to submit to invasive testing without any finding that a test is connected to the allegations in their case. It also strips testing of medical context, since courthouse staff, not medical professionals, would administer the tests.

The prior version of this program ended during the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the program ended, judges routinely treated a parental refusal to test as a reason to remove children from their homes, deny requests for reunification, or limit visitation.

In the more than five years since, Family Court has continued to operate without such courthouse drug testing, and court officials have offered no evidence that the absence of such testing has harmed children, delayed cases, or created any legitimate need for reinstatement.

Moreover, courthouse drug testing rarely helps courts answer the question that should matter most: what is good for children and their families. A positive result, standing alone, does not show whether a parent is loving, safe, stable, or capable. A urine screen can show whether certain substances may have been used within a certain window of time in the past. But it cannot show whether a parent is presently a risk to a child.

“Drug tests are not parenting tests,” emphasized Emma Ketteringham, Managing Director of the Family Defense Practice at The Bronx Defenders.

In fact, when Family Court treats drug testing as a shortcut for assessing parental fitness, it reinforces the racism that has long shaped the family policing system. The Bronx Defenders has repeatedly exposed how Black and Latine families in the Bronx are disproportionately surveilled, investigated, and separated from their children. Reinstating coercive drug testing will only entrench this harm further by giving judges another tool to treat Black and Latine parents as presumptively suspect before the facts of their cases have been heard.

For the parents we represent, a single court appearance can determine whether a child remains at home, whether a parent can see their child, or whether a family will be separated for weeks, months, or longer. The proposed drug testing program would inject coercion, surveillance, and stigma into those proceedings before parents can meaningfully present their case.

The Bronx Defenders is asking the federal court to stop officials from reviving an unconstitutional practice that forces parents to choose between their bodily autonomy and their relationship with their children.

Complaint 

PI Memo

Exhibit 1, Exhibit 4

###