Who Pays for It? The Dirty Truth of Hair Testing in the FCFCoA

Daniel Patterson Forensic Toxicologist (Drugs of Abuse)

When people think of family law disputes, they think of custody battles, child support, and visitation schedules. Few realise that in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCoA), a hidden industry thrives: expensive drug and alcohol testing, often ordered against victims of domestic violence.

These tests — typically hair follicle analyses costing between $500 – $2,000 each — are supposed to provide the court with an objective record of drug use. In reality, they are being weaponised by abusers, used to saddle survivors with financial debt and further trauma under the guise of child protection.

What My Study Found

Between March 2024 and June 2025, I conducted a retrospective review of 133 hair drug tests ordered by the FCFCoA. Of these, 26 cases (19.5%) involved individuals who were already identified as victims of domestic violence. The results are shocking:

• 69.2% of tests were completely negative.

• 11.5% were positive only for lawfully prescribed medications.

• Just 19.2% showed evidence of illicit drugs.

In other words, 80.8% of victims tested had no evidence of illicit drug use.

Despite this, the estimated cost borne by those 26 individuals was over $17,500 — money paid directly by victims who were already struggling with the costs of escaping violence.

A Tool of Coercive Control

The legal system was supposed to provide safety and justice for survivors. Instead, hair testing has become a tool of coercive control in its own right. Abusive ex-partners make allegations of drug use, and the court responds by ordering costly testing. The victim pays. The result, nine times out of ten, is a clean slate — but the financial and emotional damage is already done.

Worse, some victims were ordered to undergo repeat testing even after multiple negative results. This is not about evidence. It’s about power.

Why It Matters

The invasive nature of hair testing, combined with its high cost and low evidentiary yield in domestic violence cases, raises profound ethical and forensic questions. Should courts be mandating these tests without clear evidence of substance misuse? Should survivors be forced to foot the bill for allegations that are so often proven false?

There is currently no government subsidy or reimbursement scheme. Legal Aid NSW withdrew funding for these tests in 2022, and no replacement has been introduced. The burden rests entirely on victims — the very people the law is meant to protect.

The Bigger Picture

Internationally, experts have warned about the misuse of forensic drug testing in family law proceedings. What we are seeing in Australia is part of that same pattern: toxicology being co-opted into legal strategies of coercion.

My research shows that the current system isn’t about child safety — it’s about shifting costs and re-traumatising survivors. Until the government steps in to regulate or fund these tests properly, the practice will remain a stain on both the family law system and on forensic toxicology itself.

Political Failings: When Leadership Looks Away

This crisis is not just about courts or forensic testing — it is about political will. In June 2024, the NSW Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, Jodie Harrison, was directly notified of the issue and offered a no-corporate-profit model that could have removed the financial burden from victims. She did not respond personally. Instead, her office pushed the matter off with a boilerplate reply from a parliamentary secretary.

In August 2025, the Member for Lismore, Janelle Saffin MP, was formally asked to support a petition calling for the reinstatement of funding for victims subjected to court-ordered testing. She refused. By declining to act, both Ms Harrison and Ms Saffin have effectively sanctioned a practice that forces survivors of domestic violence to pay for their own re-victimisation.

At a time when both leaders publicly speak about tackling coercive control, their silence and refusal to intervene has left survivors trapped in a system where allegations cost thousands to disprove — and the government looks the other way.

Conclusion

Hair testing can be a powerful forensic tool when used appropriately. But in the FCFCoA, it is too often misused against domestic violence survivors. The data is clear: most tests return nothing, yet the victims pay everything.

The question remains: who benefits from this system — and who pays the price?