CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
E.E.
v.
Youthdale Treatment Centres
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: March 5, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 15
Indexed as: E.E. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres (CFSA s.124)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Merits – Addendum - E.E. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres (CFSA S.124), 2008 CFSRB 29
1On February 4, 2008, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received the application of E.E. (the “child”), D.O.B. August […], 1992, for a request to be released from Youthdale Treatment Centre, Secure Treatment Program (the “Secure Treatment Program”), pursuant to section 124 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). All of the parties were informed that the application would be heard by the Board on February 7, 2008, at the Youthdale Treatment Centre (“Youthdale”), Toronto.
2At the hearing on February 7, 2008, the Applicant was represented by Herb Stover, Barrister and Solicitor, agent for the Office of the Children's Lawyer. Youthdale was represented by Alexandra White, Barrister and Solicitor with Miller Thomson LLP.
ISSUE
3The child was admitted to the Secure Treatment Program on January […], 2008. The child was seeking an Order releasing her from the Secure Treatment Program on the basis that the criteria for emergency admission as set out in subsection 124(2)(a) to (e) of the Act had not been met.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
4The parties did not have an issue with the composition of the panel and declined to give opening statements.
5The evidence was a package from Youthdale and testimony from the following witnesses: B.E. - mother; the child; Youthdale worker - G.M..
6Mr. Stover objected to the submission of a number of documents by Ms. White. These documents included a journal kept by the child and a schoolmate, a letter from the family doctor, Dr. D.O., e-mail and MSN correspondence and an application for sole guardianship by B.E. to meet the criteria for admission to Youthdale. Mr. Stover objected on the grounds that notice had not been provided to the parties noted on the correspondence and journal entries, nor was their consent obtained. He also objected that the family doctor had not seen the child prior to her admission at Youthdale and that the sole guardianship Form 2 did not add anything relevant to the case. The Board accepted the Form 2 into evidence, but did not accept any of the other documents.
FACTS
7The child is the oldest of three children. Her parents have been separated since 2005. Her father has been out of the country since May of 2007. He had planned to return in the fall of 2007 but has not yet done so. The child has a close relationship with her father and was very sad that he had not returned home as she missed him very much. She recently learned that she has two half siblings from her father’s previous marriage.
8Since approximately October/November 2007, the child’s behaviour has been inconsistent, angry, aggressive and unpredictable. The child’s mother, B.E., has had difficulties calming her down and eliciting cooperative behaviour. The child has pushed or shoved her mother when demands have been made upon her and once threw a chair across the room. On one occasion, her mother had to call the police out of fear of harm as a result of a physical struggle with the child over her cell phone. The child has not met her curfew on a number of occasions and on one occasion was away for more than 24 hours and the police were notified. The child has made superficial cuts on her wrists. Her attendance at school has been inconsistent during the same period, which coincides with a break-up with a boyfriend.
9The child and a male schoolmate keep a journal in which they appear as fictional characters. The child had left this journal out and her mother happened to see it. On New Year’s day 2008, the child divulged a number of concerning things to her mother, namely, that she had choked a boyfriend, that her fictional alter ego behaved in ways she couldn’t control and that she felt a deep sadness. Her mother contacted her local Children’s Aid Society and a number of agencies, including Youthdale, as well as her family doctor in an effort to obtain help for the child.
ANALYSIS
Criterion (a) the child has a mental disorder.
10A mental disorder, pursuant to the Act, is defined as a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition, which grossly impairs a person’s capacity to make reasoned judgments.
11The Board received the Youthdale Admission Summary of Dr. Dr. K.C-B. dated January […], 2008. Dr. K.C-B.’s assessment was that the child had a provisional diagnosis of Parent-Child Relational Problem, an Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Mood and Conduct and a possible underlying Mood Disorder. The child had been treated at the hospital on January […] and […], 2008 and was offered antidepressant medication on an optional basis.
12Information from the assessment by Dr. K.C-B. and the testimony of the parties did not support the contention that the child has a substantial disorder or one which grossly impairs her capacity to make reasoned judgments. The Board does not accept the opinion of Dr. K.C-B. and finds that the child does not have a mental disorder as defined by the Act. The Board is satisfied that criterion (a) has not been met. In light of the Board’s finding that the first criterion for admission has not been met, it is not necessary to determine whether the remaining criteria have been established.
DECISION
13On the basis of the evidence presented and in keeping with the principles contained in s.1 of the Act, the Board is satisfied that the relevant criteria were not met at the time the child was admitted to the secure treatment program and for that reason, unanimously ordered that the child’s release from the secure treatment setting be permitted.
Lorna King Presiding Member
Mary Wong Panel Member
Gail Gonda Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 5th day of March, 2008.