>The children were not aware
>One of them tests positive for cocaine &/or associated metabolites at 5000pg/ml with 500 as cutoff
Let me ask you, why would he say that? The document dates to the 28th of May. When did the tests take place?
Before or after the 28th? If it was before, he's fucking done. He knows, he's guilty as fuck. If it was after that day, then he's coping and also done.
Fuck this guy.
The statements at the hearing by Nick indicate he seemed to have knowledge that a test of his children would bring back a positive test. If he had that knowledge, he had to have know the child was using cocaine.
At that point you are left with:
1) The child was regularly using coke without the parents knowledge and was caught using cocaine just a short time before Nick was arrested.
2) The child was regularly using coke with the parents knowledge.
This is what I understand to be the timeline based on the documents which have been posted publicly on the forum so far.
May 24, 2024
On May 24 (one day post-arrest) the petition was filed where information from initial interviews was provided, which was later posted by
@MNPublicRecords, described as a "matter of public record" and
attached to the post linked here.
At this point, which (being only one day after the arrest) would presumably be before any drug tests were completed, it was learned from initial interviews that
"the children did not know there were drugs in their home. It was confirmed by the older children that if their drug tests were positive, it was because they were exposed to someone else using drugs." As was pointed out when this document was first posted publicly on the forum, this is very odd to say and, with only a two sentence summary of what was said, almost sounds coached.
Unfortunately, the sentence is constructed passively
("It was confirmed by the older children that if ..." ) and the passive voice makes it unclear whether they volunteered the "confirmation" on their own volition. which would sound extremely sus, or whether the question was directly put to them by the county employee, which would be much less so.
That said, what is being "confirmed" is a scientific nonsense. As everyone who has read the Rekieta thread(s) now well know, the standard for hair follicle tests is to probe not merely for the presence of a drug itself but for the presence of associated metabolites as well. The presence of the metabolites imply the actual introduction of the drug into the body rather than some putative passive environmental exposure.
It's possible that such a question would be posed by county investigators with the intent to elicit information from the children, but in any case the older kids may well have had no idea since it was the second youngest child who eventually tested positive.
May 28, 2024
At the hearing on May 28, Rekieta cites this directly in his courtroom diatribe, stating that
"the petition drafted by the county itself indicates that [...] any testing of the children that would result in drug use according to the children would be because of secondary exposure from some other source."
It's worth nothing that the actual child who tested positive was the 4th child and not one of the "older children" cited above.
This comes from the latest transcript described as an "interesting new matter of public record" by
@MNPublicRecords and attached
to the post linked here.
To my knowledge, there is no information on when the test took place. But from the context, it appears that the results were not available at the time of the hearing. Throughout the transcript, the judge presses county employees on why they insist that Nick and Kayla use supervised visitation at a specialized center (of the sort where people like Ethan Ralph are allowed visitation). He wanted to know why the parents couldn't have visitation supervised by family instead. This is the part of the transcript about where the foster parents need education in recognizing drug use in the parents. According to county staff, it could take a week or two [from May 28] for the appropriate safety meeting to take place.
In any event, from later in the transcript, there is an expectation that it would be sorted out by the time of the next hearing on June 6.
June 7, 2024
From the order following the hearing on June 6, described as an "interesting new matter of public record" by
@MNPublicRecords and attached
to the post linked here, they were ordered to use the visitation center. At this point the drug tests had already happened since they were mentioned earlier in the document. This appears to be the case in other documents dated to late June posted by
@MNPublicRecords.
Did something happen between May 28 and June 6 to make the county insist on supervised visitation at a specific facility?
The document from June 7 specifically mentions the existence of the then-eight-year-old's positive drug test but the transcript from May 28 makes no reference of that at all. At that time the county's biggest concern with visitation supervised by the foster parents was that the grandparents may not recognize signs of drug use.
It stands to reason that if they had reason to believe one of the children had or would test positive way above the threshold for hard drugs, one would imagine it would have been mentioned in the hearing as a concern.
