I found your presentation really interesting, it was eye-opening to see how in both court cases, the parents' marijuana use didn't automatically lead to the children being removed from their care. There's definitely a lot of controversy around what's considered acceptable substance use around children, so hearing how the courts ruled was really insightful. I was especially curious about the first case where the mother tested positive and had a history of meth use. Would the child only be removed if they were already showing signs of harm or there was clear evidence of risk? From a counselor's perspective, wouldn't simply being exposed to those substances potentially put a child at psychological or even physical risk (like accidental ingestion)? I'm wondering, are those risks not considered legally unless actual harm has already occurred