Emerging drug trends in the UK: Testing for new substances in the family courts

There were 5,565 deaths related to drug poisoning registered in England and Wales in 2024, the highest number since records began in 1993 and a 2.1% increase compared with 2023. Concerns about rising drug-related harm have also been highlighted by the National Crime Agency, which has warned that the UK has one of the highest rates of drug deaths in Europe. Against that backdrop, it is becoming increasingly clear that drug testing in legal proceedings cannot afford to stand still. 

For professionals working in family law, this is not simply a public health story. It is a safeguarding issue. Where drug use is relevant to parenting capacity, risk within the home, or compliance with court directions, it is essential that the testing strategy reflects the reality of the substances currently being used. If it does not, the court may be asked to make decisions based on incomplete information. 

That risk is growing. The UK drug market is changing quickly, and not always in ways that are visible to those outside forensic toxicology. Substances come in and out of use at speed. New compounds appear, disappear, then re-emerge in slightly altered form. Drugs may be purchased under one name but contain something else entirely. In some cases, a person may think they are using a known drug such as cannabis, diazepam, cocaine or heroin, when in fact the substance taken contains synthetic cannabinoids, fentanyl, nitazenes or other novel psychoactive substances. 

This is one of the reasons it is becoming harder to rely on assumptions about what someone has used. In many family cases, the question is no longer just whether drug use has occurred. The more important question may be whether the testing requested is capable of identifying the substances that are actually relevant. 

What drugs are now commonly being used? 

One of the biggest shifts in recent years has been the spread of novel psychoactive substances, often referred to as NPS. This is a broad term covering a wide range of synthetic drugs, including opioids, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines, stimulants and hallucinogens. Some are designed to mimic the effects of more familiar illicit drugs. Others are sold as alternatives to controlled substances, often with the perception that they are cheaper, easier to obtain, or less likely to be detected. 

In reality, these substances can be significantly more potent and far less predictable. 

Nitazenes are one example that has caused particular concern. These are powerful synthetic opioids that have been linked to a rising number of deaths in the UK. They are often found mixed with or sold as other substances, including heroin and cocaine. This creates obvious dangers for the user, but it also creates a serious forensic challenge. A person may deny using opioids because they did not knowingly take one. Equally, they may be unable to explain a result because they were unaware of what they had consumed. 

The increased presence of nitazenes also needs to be understood in the wider context of changes to the heroin market. With opium production in Afghanistan falling sharply following enforcement measures, heroin has become scarcer and more expensive in the UK. That creates conditions in which synthetic opioids can fill the gap, either as substitutes or as adulterants. Forensic toxicology must respond to that reality. 

Synthetic cannabinoids are another area of concern. Although often grouped together under terms such as spice, the category covers numerous compounds, and the compounds in circulation can change rapidly. They are frequently more potent than cannabis and may be associated with acute behavioural disturbance, confusion, agitation, collapse, and other serious harms. Recent reports of synthetic cannabinoids being identified in vape products marketed as containing THC are particularly troubling, because they illustrate how consumers may be exposed to these substances unknowingly. 

This matters in family proceedings because use may not present in the way professionals expect. A parent may describe vaping cannabis, yet the substance involved may be something very different, with very different implications for impairment, dependency, volatility of behaviour and risk. 

Alongside these trends, there is also continuing concern around stimulant-type substances, synthetic cathinones such as MDPHP, and the misuse of prescription medications including pregabalin and gabapentin. These drugs may not always attract the same level of attention as heroin or cocaine, but they can be highly relevant in care proceedings. They may affect mood, sedation, capacity to supervise children, or ability to engage consistently with assessments and services. 

The point is not that traditional drugs are no longer relevant. They very much are. It is that the current landscape is more mixed, less transparent and more chemically complex than the one many testing pathways were designed around. 

Why emerging drug trends matter in family law 

Family court proceedings depend on good evidence. Where substance misuse is alleged or admitted, the court often needs to understand not only whether drugs have been used, but what has been used, how often, over what period, and with what likely significance. That evidence can influence assessments of risk, contact arrangements, rehabilitation plans, residential placements and final welfare decisions. 

If the testing instruction is too narrow, important information may be missed. 

This is especially relevant in cases where the picture on the ground does not fit the results being obtained. For example, professionals may have concerns arising from presentation, police intelligence, hospital attendance, social care involvement or patterns of behaviour, yet standard testing does not identify an obvious explanation. In some cases, the gap may arise because the wrong sample type has been selected. 

If the testing instruction is too narrow, important information may be missed. This is especially relevant in cases where the picture on the ground does not fit the results being obtained. For example, professionals may have concerns arising from presentation, police intelligence, hospital attendance, social care involvement or patterns of behaviour, yet standard testing does not identify an obvious explanation.

In some cases, this may reflect the selection of an inappropriate sample type or the fact that the compound of interest is not included within the routine drug analysis panel. This can lead to delay and additional cost, particularly if the instruction has to be revisited and further testing is required later in proceedings. It may also affect fairness, as parents, local authorities and children all depend on the court having access to evidence that is accurate, proportionate and fit for purpose. 

Novel substances also complicate the process of giving instructions. In many cases, the person using the substance does not know exactly what they have taken. Street names are often vague, inconsistent or misleading. The same label may refer to different compounds in different areas. The same compound may be sold under several different names. A professional drafting a letter of instruction may therefore be working with incomplete or inaccurate information from the outset. 

That is why a modern testing strategy often needs to do more than confirm or exclude a small number of familiar drugs. It needs to recognise uncertainty and allow for the possibility that the named substance is not the whole picture. 

Why many toxicology laboratories cannot test effectively for novel drugs 

The central problem is that the illicit market evolves faster than many testing systems. 

When a new substance starts circulating, there is often a lag before it is widely recognised, chemically characterised, added to reference libraries, validated within laboratory methods, and incorporated into accredited testing panels. That process takes time, and understandably so. Forensic toxicology must be scientifically robust. Laboratories cannot simply add compounds overnight without establishing reliable analytical methods and appropriate quality standards. 

But the speed of change in the drug market means that by the time some methods are in place, patterns of use may already have moved on. 

This is one reason why the Office for National Statistics has said that the proportion of drug-related deaths for which it holds no information on the specific substances involved has been increasing over time. In practical terms, there are still cases where the precise substances involved are unknown. That is a serious issue in the context of mortality data, and it is no less significant in the family courts, where the consequences of missing relevant drug use may be profound. 

There is also a difference between being able to test for a compound in principle and being set up to do so routinely and reliably in practice. A laboratory may have strong capability in one area yet still have limitations in another. It may test for some synthetic cannabinoids but not the ones currently most prevalent. It may test for legacy NPS compounds that are now rarely seen, while missing newer ones. It may offer testing for common drugs of misuse but not for emerging substances that have relevance in a safeguarding context. 

For instructing parties, that means it is no longer enough to assume that all forensic toxicology providers are operating from the same analytical menu. They are not. The scope of testing matters. 

How FTS can help with testing for novel or illicit drugs 

FTS has one of the most comprehensive accredited drug panels in the UK forensic toxicology market. Its routine and extended capabilities have been developed to reflect the reality that the drugs affecting families and court proceedings are not limited to a small set of familiar substances. 

Whilst we are guided by the instruction and/or practice direction, FTS can identify more than 43 compounds and 15 stimulants and hallucinogens. Alongside that, FTS can screen for more than 2,000 additional compounds, including novel psychoactive substances, with the panel regularly updated in response to current drug trends. That matters because relevance changes. A useful panel is not simply a long list. It is one that is actively maintained in line with what is actually appearing in the UK market. 

FTS also tests for synthetic cannabinoids, including ADB-Butinaca, which is currently one of the most used synthetic cannabinoids in the UK. It tests for pregabalin and gabapentin, which can be highly addictive and are sometimes overlooked despite their potential significance. FTS is also one of the few providers testing for MDPHP, the active ingredient in the drug commonly referred to as monkey dust, which has been associated with serious harm and a number of deaths in parts of the Midlands. 

This breadth is important not for marketing purposes, but because family cases often begin with uncertainty. The concern may be broad. The presentation may be unusual. The history given may be incomplete. A parent may minimise use, misunderstand what they have taken, or describe substances in street terms that do not map neatly onto laboratory categories. In those circumstances, broader and better-targeted forensic testing can make the difference between identifying the issue and missing it. 

FTS’s work in this area is supported by continual development to address evolving drug use patterns in the UK. That means its testing capability is not static. As substances emerge or return to the illicit market, the panel can respond. In a sector where the chemistry moves quickly, that responsiveness is critical. 

How to instruct FTS to test for novel drugs 

FTS will only ever report on the drugs of suspicion as requested.  However, we do have an option where you can be notified if we can see additional compounds (which you may not know about).  You then have the option to request an addendum report should you require it, or the reworded court order asks for it. 

Where there is a specific concern about novel psychoactive substances, or where it is simply unclear what may have been used, FTS can screen for more than 2,000 compounds alongside the requested routine panel. This gives instructing parties a more realistic chance of identifying relevant substances, rather than spending public funds on a panel focused only on drugs that are no longer the most pressing concern. 

The value here is twofold. First, it helps reduce the risk that important drug misuse will go undetected. Second, it supports better decision-making. If the court is being asked to assess risk to a child, it is far better to know that a parent has been exposed to a potent synthetic cannabinoid or opioid than to proceed on the assumption that the picture is limited to a more familiar substance category. 

Depending on the compounds detected, FTS may also be able to provide additional information regarding possible patterns of use or exposure through further analytical development. That can be particularly helpful where the legal question is not limited to presence or absence, but extends to frequency, chronicity, or the likely significance of the findings in context. 

FTS’s services are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 and Lab 51 UKAS accreditation. They are Legal Aid Authority compliant, and FTS offers an LAA Indemnity Guarantee where there is any shortfall in reimbursement. Reports are usually provided within five days from sample arrival at the laboratory, and expert witnesses can also attend court where required. 

In care proceedings, timing and clarity matter. A testing provider that can identify relevant compounds, explain the findings properly and deliver within court timescales is not a luxury. It is often essential. 

As drug trends continue to shift across the UK, the gap between what is being used and what is being tested for may widen unless instructions keep pace. Family courts need evidence that reflects current realities, not outdated assumptions. When novel substances are a possible feature of the case, the testing strategy should be built accordingly. 

For information on how FTS can support testing for novel drugs, including nitazenes or monkey dust, contact 01924 480272 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Please click here for further information.

References 

National Crime Agency (2024) There has never been a more dangerous time to take drugs, says National Crime Agency as annual threat assessment is published. Available at: https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/there-has-never-been-a-more-dangerous-time-to-take-drugs-says-national-crime-agency-as-annual-threat-assessment-is-published (Accessed: 14 April 2026).  

Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (2024) Deaths linked to potent synthetic opioids. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deaths-linked-to-potent-synthetic-opioids/deaths-linked-to-potent-synthetic-opioids (Accessed: 14 April 2026).  

Office for National Statistics (2024) Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales: 2023 registrations. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2023registrations (Accessed: 14 April 2026).  

Office for National Statistics (2025) Deaths related to drug poisoning by selected substances, England and Wales. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoningbyselectedsubstances (Accessed: 14 April 2026).  

Office for National Statistics (2025) Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales: 2024 registrations. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2024registrations (Accessed: 14 April 2026).  

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2025) Afghanistan’s opium production falls to record lows amid drought and sustained ban enforcement. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/coafg/en/stories/2025/afghanistans-opium-production-falls-to-record-lows-amid-drought-and-sustained-ban-enforcement.html (Accessed: 14 April 2026).