She Followed the Plan. The System Still Took Her Child.
Inside the Murray County, Georgia Termination of Parental Rights Case of Kesha Burch
Judge Jason Salter | Murray County Juvenile Court | Georgia DFCS
“If I had done one thing wrong, I could understand this.”
For nearly two years, Kesha Burch did what parents are told to do when Child Protective Services takes their child.
She complied.
She showed up.
She attended therapy.
She remained under psychiatric care.
She submitted to drug testing—again and again.
She never missed visits.
And yet, on May 2, 2025, the Juvenile Court of Murray County, Georgia, presided over by Judge Jason Salter, terminated her parental rights.
Three days later, on May 5, 2025, the court issued an amended termination order.
What happened in between—and what the public record now reflects—raises serious questions about drug testing science, access to confirmatory evidence, procedural fairness, and how permanent family separation decisions are made in Georgia’s child welfare system.
This article relies on court orders, filed motions, laboratory reports, written communications, and sworn filings, along with Kesha Burch’s recorded account of the proceedings. It does not speculate about intent. It documents process, outcomes, and unresolved systemic questions.
How the Case Began — and Why Dates Matter
According to Kesha, DFCS removed her infant daughter in June 2023.
Court records, she states, repeatedly referenced July 2023 instead.
That discrepancy matters.
Initial hearings, statutory timelines, and early procedural protections in dependency cases are tied directly to the date of removal. Kesha states she never received what she understood to be the required early hearing following removal, and she believes the date discrepancy affected how the court understood the early phase of the case.
Whether clerical or consequential, the inconsistency became emblematic of the case itself: details mattered—but were often disputed, shifted, or left unresolved.
Two Years of Compliance — By the Book
Kesha describes a case plan that expanded rather than narrowed over time.
She reports completing:
ongoing therapy (weekly, then bi-weekly),
psychiatric treatment and prescribed medication,
parenting classes,
anger management,
substance-related programming,
NA meetings (added later),
and consistent visitation.
She states she never missed visits.
Despite this, she reports that visitation was reduced as the case progressed—eventually to fewer and shorter visits. She further states that a parenting aide testified that reducing visitation was not fair to the child.
This is a critical tension in dependency cases: visitation reductions that are not tied to safety findings can later be used as evidence of weakened parent-child bonds—a problem that compounds over time.
The Turning Point: Drug Testing Becomes the Case
As the case moved toward termination, drug testing became central.
Kesha states she repeatedly raised concerns about hair follicle testing, believing the results did not reflect her behavior or reality. In response, she requested sweat patch (“patch”) testing, believing it would be more accurate.
A patch test report in the record reflects:
a positive methamphetamine result, and
related amphetamine findings reported below the lab’s positive cutoff threshold.
This distinction matters.
Why Testing Type Matters
Hair follicle tests typically reflect long-term exposure (often 90 days).
Sweat patches reflect short-term exposure over the wear period.
Cutoff thresholds and confirmation language vary by test type.
When courts treat different testing methods as interchangeable—or dismiss conflicting results as mere “timing issues”—they risk flattening complex science into simple conclusions.
The Missing Science: D/L Isomer Testing
This is where the case becomes deeply troubling.
Kesha states she learned—through outside reporting and later communications—that D/L isomer testing exists to distinguish illicit methamphetamine from other possible sources, including legally prescribed or non-illicit compounds.
According to written communications referenced in the record:
D/L isomer testing was available through the lab,
DFCS was not contracted to use it,
and the test could be obtained only through self-pay.
Kesha states she requested this confirmatory testing. It was never performed.
The result: the court made a permanent, irreversible decision without the most differentiating scientific test available for the very substance at issue.
When Access to Exculpatory Science Depends on Money
This point cannot be overstated.
If confirmatory science exists—but:
the State does not pay for it,
the parent cannot compel it,
and the parent cannot afford it,
then access to potentially exculpatory evidence depends on financial means.
This is not a question of guilt or innocence.
It is a question of equal access to proof when fundamental rights are at stake.
Kesha’s filings frame this as a due-process and equal-protection concern. Whether courts agree or not, the question is legitimate—and deeply unsettling.
Partial Reports and Missing Pages
In later filings, Kesha alleges that a hair follicle report submitted to the court omitted a separate fentanyl panel page.
She states that when she later obtained the complete report directly from the lab, the missing page reflected negative fentanyl results.
Her Georgia Supreme Court petition similarly alleges that incomplete lab documentation was presented at trial.
If true, this would mean the court did not see the full testing picture when weighing evidence used to justify permanent family separation.
The record reflects the allegation. It does not reflect that the issue was resolved before termination.
“Different Dates. Different Panels.”
Kesha recounts a moment in court where Guardian ad Litem Matthew Thames acknowledged that the drug test documents involved different dates and different panels, yet still proceeded under the interpretation presented.
She states the court discounted conflicting results by attributing discrepancies to timing differences, rather than reconciling them through confirmatory science.
This matters because unreconciled contradictions do not disappear simply because time passes.
Mental Health: Stability or a Liability?
Kesha states she proactively addressed her mental health:
consistent psychiatric care,
prescribed medication,
ongoing therapy.
She further states that a psychologist testified her mental health did not present a parenting risk.
Yet in post-trial filings, Kesha alleges that mental health history was still used against her, despite compliance and testimony.
This is a recurring issue in child welfare cases: when treatment is framed not as stability, but as evidence of risk.
Income, Disability, and “Missing” Information
Kesha also disputes how her financial stability was portrayed.
She states:
she was on disability and provided a Social Security letter to DFCS,
termination paperwork suggested she could not maintain employment,
proof of her reinstated driver’s license was emailed to DFCS but described as “unclear,”
and her status as a part-time college student with a strong GPA was not meaningfully weighed.
She also states DFCS challenged household income while referencing a benefit connected to the child’s father—an inconsistency she believes was never reconciled.
A Caseworker Shift — and a Push Toward Termination
Kesha identifies Barbara Clark as the DFCS caseworker who entered later in the case and, according to her account, moved quickly toward termination.
She alleges Clark:
reviewed bank accounts,
questioned disability status,
photographed the home,
and made statements about license suspension that Kesha says were inaccurate.
These are allegations, not findings—but they are specific, documentable claims.
The Missed Witness: When Science Was Not Allowed to Speak
One of the most significant procedural issues emerges at reconsideration.
Kesha states she paid to bring a collection-site witness—someone who could explain testing methodology and the absence of D/L isomer differentiation.
The witness was present.
According to Kesha, the court proceeded to closing arguments instead, and the witness did not testify as expected.
Her filings allege improper exclusion of defense testimony.
In cases where science is central, preventing live explanation of methodology can be outcome-determinative.
The Final Orders: Three Days That Changed Everything
On May 2, 2025, Judge Jason Salter entered the final termination order.
On May 5, 2025, the court issued an amended order.
The orders acknowledge that some substances may originate from lawful sources.
They nonetheless conclude continued dependency was proven.
The court relied on multiple types of drug testing, treated conflicting results as date-based rather than methodology-based, and did so without D/L isomer confirmation.
Three days. A lifetime consequence.
Appeals, Denials, and a Closed Door
Kesha filed motions to reconsider on May 22, 2025, and July 9, 2025, arguing:
confirmatory evidence was unavailable at trial,
the parent could not compel the State to obtain it,
and the missing science was outcome-determinative.
The motions were denied.
Her appeal was denied on September 24, 2025.
She then petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court.
This Is Not Just One Case
Drug testing disputes are common in dependency courts.
Confirmatory testing is often optional.
Parents rarely control lab selection.
Courts often rely on summaries, not raw data.
When those dynamics converge, families can lose children without ever having access to the full scientific truth.
Why This Story Should Frustrate You
Not because one judge or caseworker is “evil.”
But because the system:
treats compliance as provisional,
treats science as conclusive when it is not,
and treats permanence as acceptable even when questions remain unanswered.
Termination of parental rights is often called the civil death penalty.
If that is true, then the standard for evidence should be exacting.
Kesha Burch’s case asks whether that standard was met.
