This case raises important questions about whether a Family Court has the power to condition a father’s parental rights on lowering or stopping his use of methadone in the absence of medical justification for doing so. Medications for opioid use disorder (“MOUD”), like methadone, are the standard of care and the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder (“OUD”), a chronic, treatable disease of the brain. It would be unimaginable, and plainly illegal, for a court to terminate an individual’s parental rights because they use a high dose of insulin to treat diabetes. Yet, because of the stigma facing individuals who use methadone, Respondent-Appellant Jorge C.’s (hereinafter “Jorge”) parental rights were terminated in large part for precisely that reason: because of his disability and the medication he uses to treat it.
The Family Court discriminated against Jorge based on pernicious stereotypes about individuals who use methadone—a medication the World Health Organization lists as an essential medication. In doing so, the Family Court impermissibly ignored the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (“ADA”) prohibition on discrimination against people in recovery from a substance use disorder, like Jorge. A court may not make adverse decisions against a parent based on his participation in a methadone program. Yet, here, the Family Court improperly made adverse inferences about Jorge’s ability to care for his child because of the dose of methadone his medical provider placed him on. It repeatedly made inaccurate statements about the length and dosage of Jorge’s methadone treatment despite the lack of record evidence and medical consensus supporting those assertions. Reversal of the Family Court’s order is essential to ensure liberty and equality for parents with substance use disorder and parents receiving MOUD treatment in this and similar cases (cf. Beeken v Fredenburg, 145 AD3d 1394, 1397 [3d Dept 2016] [reversing Family Court’s order because its findings on propriety of MOUD based on “many years of experience in Drug Court” were not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record]). This appeal raises important questions of law and will serve to correct the substantial injustice to Jorge, whose parental rights were improperly terminated.
The ACLU, NYCLU, and four experts in addiction medicine (“Amici”) submit this amicus brief to provide evidence-based research supporting the scientific and medical consensus that MOUD, including methadone, is the standard of care for OUD and is the appropriate medication for parents with OUD, and to combat the stigma surrounding methadone treatment. Amici also write to provide background on the purpose and scope of federal disability law and to show that the Family Court improperly discriminated against Jorge in its termination of his parental rights.
Accordingly, Amici urge this Court to reverse the Family Court’s order terminating Jorge’s parental rights.