That’s a very interesting theory. It’s probably the least bad explanation for the kid’s positive hair test - if residual smoke can do that.
Every single possible explanation for how his child tested positive for cocaine except for the ones indicating foul play, e.g. the sample not being from the child and just from some other person leads to the same conclusion: neglect.
If it's his child and someone gave them cocaine, neglect.
If he did give them the cocaine directly, neglect.
If his child took the cocaine and they knew it, neglect. If they didn't know it, still neglect.
Smoked crack cocaine near the child? Neglect.
Surrounded by so much cocaine that it contaminated her hair? Neglect.
Again, if the hair is from someone who isn't Nick's family, that should be something Nick would want to tell everyone, but he's not. Right now he's saying it's impossible to get that result.
But it's not impossible, if you had cocaine in your fucking house and you were neglecting your children. And everything we've seen points to that being the reason. Outside of it not even being his child's hair sample, it doesn't matter how she tested positive for that amount. Any option Nick wants to suggest how it happened outside of the one I've mentioned is fucking bad. I'm hoping they add more charges to what he did, or more specifically, what he didn't do.
The only correct and acceptable amount of cocaine in a child's system is fucking zero, not 5,000. I'd like to see his crackpot theories play out in trial, but more importantly, I'd like to hear what the child would say about how it happened. I feel deep within my balls that the answer the child would give would sink Nick.