Michelle Dorsey's Custody Case Summary

In the words of former president George W. Bush, “Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." In the case between Michelle Dorsey and the Family Court of Livingston County, Michigan, however, it seems that families are where our nation finds privacy—or perhaps not. In this case, Michelle Dorsey’s custody of her child Tyler Dorsey is under question after Tyler’s long bout of judicial delinquency. Michelle’s own testimony regarding her prior drug use placed her under scrutiny by the Family Court, and she was later required to submit a drug test. The results of this test would determine whether Michelle was a fit parent capable of maintaining custody over Tyler. In regards to this case, multiple factors must be observed

as multiple quantifiers of privacy and what is “unreasonable” has risen from Court decisions. Furthermore, we must observe whether or not Michelle’s argument that a parent’s privacy interest outweighed the government’s interest in protecting and rehabilitating juvenile offenders.
While not a matter of privacy, we observe parental interest versus the government’s in Wisconsin v. Yoder and how its ruling applies to Dorsey’s case. Jonas Yoder argued that the mandatory school attendance enforced on his children, who followed the Amish faith, was a violation of the First Amendment under the Freedom of Expression Clause. As a result, the Court had a compelling question at hand: which holds a more compelling interest in deciding a child’s livelihood—the government or the parents? Overall, it was a blend of both. In order to allow the parent to have influence of their child’s livelihood, the child must not be impacted negatively or become a burden on society. For example, if Yoder had argued that his children did not need to attend school whatsoever, this would have deemed a burden onto the child and society itself under the Court’s ruling as the child would be unable to meet the intellectual pace dictated by modern day standards. In that case, the governmental interest would outweigh the interest of the parent. Applying this logic to the Dorsey case, we find that Tyler Dorsey’s behavior falls under being a burden to society after being charged multiple instances of judicial delinquency. Therefore, Michelle Dorsey’s claim that her interest for privacy as a parent outweighed that of the government’s interest is invalid.
Furthermore, like Dorsey’s case, many child custody laws across many states require a drug test in order for custody to remain or be granted to a parent.

The rationale behind this is that family courts follow the “the golden rule” in which “the court must always act in the best interest of the child or children in a case” (Boyd Law). Further rationalizations behind this are the rights granted by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment in which governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law; that includes both Michelle Dorsey and Tyler Dorsey. If Tyler’s mother is incapable of being a positive parent, creating his chronic delinquency as a result, one may argue that he is being deprived of life and liberty, which may introduce a compelling enough government interest in order to rationalize Michelle Dorsey’s drug test. Dorsey might argue that her own liberty was being infringed upon as she was not formally convicted of a crime. This argument becomes invalid in light of Dorsey’s testimony and the concept of suspicion and probable cause, which will be discussed

later.
There is a major factor in Dorsey’s case that differentiates it from that of Wisconsin v. Yoder: privacy. There are quite a few mixed feelings amongst the Court on what is determined to be a reasonable drug test and what is not. One of the deciding factors in reasonability is suspicion. The concept of suspicion is brought up in both National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab and Vernonia School District v. Acton. In National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, suspicionless drug testing was deemed constitutional by the Fourth Amendment due to the safety hazards that these positions had, while Vernonia School District v. Acton determined that individualized suspicion was not required in order for the drug testing at the school district to be considered reasonable. Diving deeper into the Vernonia School District v. Acton case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that the Court’s rationale that individualized suspicion was unnecessary in this case was not explained thoroughly enough to be used as a deciding factor. She furthered that the Court typically disagreed with blanket searches and only allowed them in the most dangerous cases, such as prison searches.
In Michelle Dorsey’s case, there is the component of suspicion and also probable cause. Dorsey had admitted that she had smoked crack cocaine in the past, but argued that she had been drug-free for several years. While there was no specific evidence found by the Family Court, Dorsey’s testimony that she had once used crack cocaine could be justification for suspicion. Even without Dorsey’s testimony, her position as a parent may place safety hazards on her child, Tyler Dorsey, and therefore be sufficient grounds for the drug testing to take place. Similarly, much like the students at the Vernonia School District who gave up their some of their privacy rights, Michelle Dorsey gave up some of her own privacy rights by divulging information about her past drug abuses. On a more extreme end, individuals who have bragged about their crimes have been arrested and convicted with their unofficial confession being used as evidence. Dorsey, while not bragging about her drug uses, confessed to having problems and her unwillingness to take a drug test only heightens the suspicion placed on her by offering such a claim.
Turning to instances in which drug testing was deemed unconstitutional, we observe Chandler v.

Miller. In this case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in the majority opinion that Georgia’s drug testing standards did not meet the suspicionless exception placed by the National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. However, the individuals that were being tested were governmental officials without a history of substance abuse and therefore differ from Dorsey’s case and cannot be held to the same standard. Lastly, there is the argument that there is not enough evidence to warrant a warrantless search. However, Dorsey’s testimony counts as evidence. While this would not be enough to convict her of a crime, a positive drug test would. However, the challenge lies in receiving that information from Dorsey, who has refused to take the drug test. If Dorsey continued to refuse, it may be best for the Court to issue a warrant using the probable cause presented in Dorsey’s

testimony.
In observing the complexities of Michelle Dorsey’s case alongside of those similar, there are multiple factors that lead to the conclusion that Dorsey not only gave up some of her privacy by admitting to prior drug use but also placed suspicion on herself by doing so. Furthermore, if her substance abuse had continued despite her denial, she likely endangered the livelihood of a child and compelled the government to take action. If Prince Rogers Nelson were alive and a justice today, he may have some very keen advice to offer to Michelle Dorsey as he stands rightfully on the bench, adorned in a purple robe with stunning eyeliner: “act your age, mama, not your shoe size.”