Q: What is case law on a non-custodial parents girlfriend being requested to give a hair follicle after already submitting

A: This is one of those questions that lack all of the detail needed to properly respond to. There is also missing an issue except to the extent that a "non-custodial parent's "girlfriend" already submitted to a hair follicle test.

There is a considerable body of case law on the American family. However, none of that caselaw makes any sense unless it is used to address an issue for the purpose of helping predict how a court will respond in deciding that issue.

For example, there is substantial case law on the authority and power of an agreement entered into by parents as regards the custody and control of their children. If the non-custodial parent stipulated to having his girlfriend undergo a hair follicle test prior to each visit, then despite all that risk, expense and inconvenience, the non-custodial parent is stuck and must abide by his agreement until the agreement is modified.

Otherwise, unless the girlfriend is impleaded into the proceeding, the court will have no jurisdiction over her. There is substantial case law that prohibits a court from entering orders regulating the conduct of non-parties.

These examples show how appellate decisions make no sense if examined in isolation. Isolation means using one appellate decision with no consideration of other, case-specific details, for example, the existence of an agreement to include an otherwise excludable person. Case law says no jurisdiction, but other case law says the agreement controls.

The asker cannot pick and choose the case law he wants to hear. If he wants a cogent and accurate response to his inquiry, he should show the documents he has to an attorney for a full assessment as to what is happening to the non-custodial parent and his girlfriend.