At a Kent County Board of Commissioners meeting, Friend of the Court staff described services the office can provide to parents who have difficulty contacting Child Protective Services and explained how the office treats marijuana use when evaluating custody and parenting time.

The Friend of the Court staff member said the office cannot speak for CPS but can help parents by facilitating contact, using internal contacts to “give them a tap on the shoulder” or by scheduling meetings to connect parents with CPS. The staff member encouraged parents who are struggling to call the Friend of the Court office or set an online appointment via the county website so staff can “go over all those options with them at that time.”

The staff member said anxiety is common when CPS is involved and that cases sometimes involve the Friend of the Court and the courts. On how marijuana factors into evaluations, the staff member said the office drops an “illegal drug lens” after legalization and instead applies “a legal substance lens,” meaning that a parent’s lawful use can still be problematic if it affects the child. “The focus is on not necessarily what a parent's use of that particular substance is but how it impacts the child,” the staff member said.

The Friend of the Court staff described possible court-ordered measures to address concerns about substance use, including prohibitions on use during parenting time and required random drug testing. The office said it would structure parenting-time or custody recommendations to address verified concerns, and it would seek corroboration about a child’s exposure to substances — for example, who could substantiate that a child “is smelling like marijuana.”

Discussion at the meeting noted parents’ uncertainty about whether to call CPS, the Friend of the Court, or police when they have safety concerns. A commenter thanked the Friend of the Court for services including child support assistance and help connecting parents to employment resources.

Meeting comments and Q&A were presented as staff explanations and did not include any formal board action regarding changes to Friend of the Court policy or CPS procedures. The staff repeatedly emphasized that the office’s role is to advise the court and recommend orders that focus on child safety and functioning rather than to enforce CPS processes directly.

The remarks occurred during a public presentation portion of the meeting; no formal motions or votes resulted from this exchange.