OFFICIAL OPINION No. 26

OFFICIAL OPINION No. 26 Legally responsible re~atives-Liabili ty for treatment provided pursnan t to the Drug and Alcohol Abnse Control Act (Act 63 )-Liabili t y under A r ticle V of the M ental H ealth and Mental Retardation A ct of 19G6. 1. Neither minors treated pursuant to Act 63 nor the legally responsible rel- atives of minors treated pursuant to Act 63 are liable for the costs of that treatment. 2. Legally responsible relatives can be liable. for costs of tre'.1tment provide.a under Act 63 if that treatment is provided after a mmor attams his majority and if the relative owes a legal duty to support the adult re- cipient of treatr.ient. 3. Liability of minors and taefr legally responsible relatives under Act 63 is unaffected by the source of the reqnest for treatment. 4. A major legislative purpose for the liabi_lity provision_s of Ac.t 63 was to provide maximum incentives for both mmors and tllell" relatives to seek out treatment for minors' drug and alcohol abu::;e p>oblerns. Honorable Helene Wohlgemuth Secretary Harrisburg, Pa. March 30, 1973 Department of Public W. elfare Harrisburg, Pennsylvama Dear Secretary Wohlgemuth: In your letter of F_ebruary_ 2, 1973, you af'ked for advice on four questions regarding Sect10n 13 of t~e Drug and Alcohol Ab- use Act (Act 63 of April 14, 1972). Section 13 states: 62 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "Except for minors, all persons receivin~. treatment under this Act shall be subject to the provisions of ~r­ ticle V of ... the 'Mental Health and Menta.l R~~a.rdat10n Act of 1966' in so far as it relates to hab1hties and payments for services rendered by the Common- weal th." I will deal with each of your questions separately: 1. Are the legally responsible relatives of minors treated pursuant to Act 63 liable for the costs of that treatment? The legally responsible relatives of minors treated pursuant to Act 63 are not liable for the costs of that treatment. Section 13 of the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Act, supra, provides that liability for treatment offered pursuant to that Act shall be imposed in the same manner as under Section 501 and 502 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act, but Section 13 specifically excludes minors from that liability scheme. Minors, therefore, have no liability for services provided under Act 63. The liability of relatives is determined by Section 502 ( 50 P.S. §4502): " ... whenever any person admitted, committed or otherwise receiving any service or benefit under this Act shall be unable to discharge the obligation imposed upon him by Section 5or, such liability is hereby im- posed upon any person owing a legal duty to support the person ... receiving services .... " (Emphasis add- ed.) The language of Section 502 is unambiguous; the liability of the relative is contingent upon the existence of an obligation on the recipient to repay expenses as imposed by Section 501. If the recipient has no obligation under Section 501, the legally re- sponsible relative has no obligation under Section 50~. Since minors are not liable for the costs of treatment provided under Act 63, their legally responsible relative cannot be liable for these costs under the terms of Section 502 as incorporated into Act 63. 2. Can legally responsible relatives become liable for costs of treatment provided under Act 63 after the minor attains his majority if treatment continues after that date? Legally responsible relatives can be liable for these costs un- der certain circumstances. Section 502 imposes liability only upon "any person owin ~ a leP-al dutv to support the person . .. receiving services .... " Therefore, although the general exemp- tion granted minors by Section 13 of Act 63 applies only to costs incurred during minority, relatives would not be liable for ser- vices rendered after minority under Section 502 unless they have a legal duty to support the recipient during his majority. The circumstances under which a relative must support an adult are, of course, restricted. In general, the responsible relative OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 63 must be finan~ially able to payl and the adult in need of support must be pJ:iys1cal~y or mentally unable to support himself.2 In these restricted circumstances, however the relative would be- come liable for the treatment provided after the recipient at- tains his majority . . 3. Are r~latives exempted from liability for treatment pro- vided a mmor under Act 63 even if the parent requests the treatment or a court orders the treatment? The exemption for minors in Section 13 of Act 63 is without qualification. Therefore, the exemption applies regardless of the source of the request for treatment of the minor. This broad exemption serves the legislative purpose of encouraging to the greatest possible extent both parents and minors to seek treat- ment for a minor's drug or alcohol abuse problem. 4. What justification exists for exempting relatives from li- ability for treatment provided minors under Act 63 when rel- atives of minors treated pursuant to the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act do not escape liability? An answer to this question necessarily involves an element of speculation as to the legislature's purpose. The purpose of the exemption for minors contained in Section 13 is clearly to en- courage minors to seek treatment. This purpose is reflected in other sections of Act 63. For example, Section 12 provides that minors can give effective consent for their own treatment and that parents need not be informed that the minor is receiving treatment. The liability exemption for minors and their relatives is consistent with Section 12 since minors could not keep their treatment confidential if their parents were made to pay for it. The decision of the legislature not to limit the exemption for minors to situations where the minor seeks confidential treat- ment also supports the contention that the legislature's hi~hest priority was to encourage minors to get treatment for drug abuse. If the exemption in Section 13 had been so limited, parents would have had an incentive to avoid taking their children in for treatment because parental consent would immediately im- pose liability on the parent. The statute's terms, then,demon- strate that the legislature's over-riding concern is to seek treat- ment for the minor's drug abuse problems. The different ap- proach that the legislature has taken toward mental retardation and mental illness can be explained in terms of the unique im- pact that the drug user has on society-the high probability that drug users will lead others into drug dependence or will commit violent crimes. These considerations informed the legis- 1. See, e.g. Com. ex. rel. Hampton v. Deveaux, 183 Pa. Super. 92 (1957). 2. See, e.g., Cornm. ex. r el. O'Malley v. O'Mallcy, 105 Pa. Super. 232 (1932) . 64 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL lative decision to remove all possible disincentives to the dec- ision to seek treatment for drug abuse. Sincerely yours, ROBERT F. NAGEL Deputy Attorney General ISRAEL P ACKEL Attorney General