What happened to Texas kids seized under new meth law?

Sometimes, the unasked questions are the most important ones. Like the one in the headline to this post.

Continuing with analysis from the Texas House Law Enforcement Committee interim report (pdf), another "charge" to the committee was to monitor the implementation of HB 164, Texas anti-meth law passed in 2005 that authorized the state to take custody of children seized near meth labs and required consumers to show ID and sign for pseudoephedrine products (like cold tablets) that are used to make homemade meth.

I was disappointed the committee failed to focus at all in its report on the most important aspect of this bill: What happened to the children seized as a result of this new law? Were they later returned to their parents? Did they enter the foster care system? Since HB 164 provided no new or specialized resources for these chidren, do we know whether they received counseling and support needed by a child traumatized by removal from their family? None of these questions are discussed in the report - we don't even know how many children were seized under the new law - 10, 50, 100, 500, quien sabe?

Did anybody see 60 Minutes' segment on foster children who were taken away from their parents last night? Here's the video. What happens psychologically to children under such circumstances really can't be understood unless you've witnessed it. These kids are psychically brutalized then basically thrown away. And the Law Enforcement Committee's report reflects that - nobody even looked to see what happened to them.

The one part of the bill that officials say worked as planned, sort of, is the registration requirements for "precursor" meth-making chemicals - according to DPS, the number of small meth labs discovered by law enforcement decreased in all counties between 50-80%, depending on the county. However, there has been no decline in the availability of meth because of increased importation of higher purity Mexican meth which has flooded the Texas market despite millions in boosted border enforcement.

In addition, while large retailers largely are complying with the law, many smaller retailers do not and DPS suggests a public education campaign among them to increase compliance with the law.

Rep. Lon Burnam pointed out that Texas' strategy seemed to ignore the demand side of the equation, and rightly suggested more focus be placed on funding drug treatment. Not only did HB 164 fail to provide treatment for meth addicts, treatment for all low-level drug users in Texas state jails was discontinued in 2005 for lack of funds.

Still, according to the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, meth-related entries into drug treatment increased from 1,821 in 2000 to 11,238 in 2004, said the interim report. In a state with 20+ million people, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the need.

I opposed HB 164 in 2005. I'm glad the number of meth labs has declined, but I sure wish somebody was keeping track of the kids taken from their parents as a result of this statute, and that state officials would focus resources on treatments for meth addiction instead of ever-more prison time for more people.