A judge has ordered an explanation as to how a four year-old Milford Haven boy had cocaine and the sedative diazepam in his body.
His drug-taking mother appeared at Swansea crown court last week to admit cruelty to the child.
Judge Paul Thomas said he was not willing to sentence her until he knew how the boy came to be in that condition.
The barrister representing the mother said she pleaded guilty on the basis of the condition of the house and her condition when police arrived in March last year and took the boy away.
Frank Phillips, prosecuting, said a hair sample from the boy had been examined and revealed “a cocktail of drugs” including cocaine and diazepam.
The mother’s barrister said that, at present, she wanted to suggest that the hair sample had not in fact “been plucked from the head of the boy” but had been given to the police by a relative.
Judge Thomas said he wanted a full explanation from both the prosecution and the defence.
Because, he added, there was a huge difference between the mother feeding her son drugs, her leaving the drugs around the house so that a curious child might get hold of them and her claiming that she was being “fitted up” by a relative.”
Mr Phillips said police had found “a large number of drugs lying around the house.”
Judge Thomas said he would be failing in his duty if he did not establish how a four year old boy could have cocaine in his body.
“I don’t care how much cocaine he had in his system, he should not have had any at all,” he added.
Judge Thomas warned the mother it was a serious matter even if it turned out she had been careless with her drugs as opposed to deliberately giving them to her child.
But her allegation that the hair sample had not come from her son, and instead had been “planted” by a relative, was also serious.
Judge Thomas said he wanted the prosecution to announce within seven days what the truth of their case was.
The mother will be sentenced on May 4 and was granted bail until then.
Judge Thomas ordered her to co-operate with the probation service in the preparation of a report into her background, which she had failed to do on March 28.
If she failed again, said the judge, only one type of sentence would follow.