DES MOINES, Wash. -- A Des Moines father allegedly gave his two young children and his ex-wife cookies laced with meth in order to discredit his ex in an upcoming custody battle.
Chad Holm, 37, and his girlfriend Monique Garcia, 43, were questioned by detectives after Holm's ex-wife and 5-year-old son ate part of a cookie topped with frosting made with sugar and meth, both later testing positive for the drug, according to the Des Moines Police Department.
Holm and his wife, both past meth users, split up in April 2011, and their two children, ages 5 and 7, were put in Holm's care a few months later when his ex-wife entered drug treatment.
During a supervised visit Sept. 3, the 7-year-old brought his mother cookies wrapped in foil provided to him by Garcia, according to police. Holm's ex-wife told detectives she and her 5-year-old tried to eat one of the cookies but stopped because it tasted terrible.
She then failed her next drug test, testing positive for meth for the first time in more than a year since going into treatment. Her 5-year-old son was tested during her next supervised visit, and he also tested positive for meth.
Holm's ex-wife told detectives she believes Holm tainted the cookies in an attempt to discredit her during an upcoming custody trial.
According to police, Garcia told detectives she remembered making the cookies with the children but wasn't sure how meth would get into them. She said she and Holm no longer do drugs.
Holm also denied putting meth into the cookies, telling detectives his ex-wife is trying to cover up her own relapse.
But, Holm's 7-year-old also tested positive for meth, possibly for environmental reasons. And, Holm himself tested positive, later forging test results to show negative, according to police.
Prosecutors are not filing charges in relating to the meth cookies at this time because they can't prove who made the cookies or who put meth in them. But, Holm is facing perjury charges for falsifying his drug test results.
Ed. Note: It was originally reported Holm and Garcia were charged with endangerment. This is incorrect, and we regret the error.