B.M. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2008 CFSRB 57

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

B.M.

v.

Youthdale Treatment Centres

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: June 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 57

Indexed as: B.M. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres (CFSA s.124)

1On May 6, 2008, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received the application of B.M. (the “Child”), d.o.b. June […], 1998, 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”). The parties were advised that the application would be heard by the Board on May 7, 2008, at the Youthdale Treatment Centre (“Youthdale”), Toronto.

2At the hearing on May 7, 2008 the Applicant was represented by Herb Stover, Barrister and Solicitor. Youthdale was represented by Alexandra White, Barrister and Solicitor with Miller Thomson LLP.

ISSUE

3The Child was admitted to the Secure Treatment Program on May […], 2008 and was seeking an Order releasing him 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

4Mr. Stover raised the issue of the composition of the panel, in that there were only two members. His preference would have been three members, however, he agreed to proceed with two members. He requested that his concern be documented in the reasons for decision.

5The evidence was a package from Youthdale Psychiatric Crisis Service, Exhibit 1 and a document entitled Baseline Data Collection, Exhibit 2 and testimony from the following witnesses: by teleconference from Sault Ste. Marie, J.B., co-owner of a human services agency and a registered social worker, J.R., prime worker, CYW for the Child, and in person A.J., Children’s Services Supervisor, York Region Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”), G.M., Youthdale Training Co-ordinator and the Child.

FACTS

6The Child is a 9 year old Crown Ward (with access) of the Society. When the Child and his brother were apprehended in May, 2005 the […] First Nation Band requested that the children be placed in Sault Ste. Marie. They were placed in a native foster home. The foster placement could not maintain the Child as there were problems with his brother. That placement lasted two months. The Child then moved to a group home managed by a human services agency (“Agency”). The Child resided in a foster home managed by the Agency from July 2005 until November 2007. In November 2007 the Child was moved to a group home where he is the only child residing at that home and he is receiving two to one staffing. He has contact with his younger brother. He also has some contact with extended family, namely maternal aunts. The Child has been receiving psychiatric support by Dr. A. through a family service in Sault Ste. Marie.

7The Child has been displaying temper outbursts at the group home and at school. He has stated that he wants to harm staff. He has damaged things at the group home, broken doors and thrown chairs, brooms and dishes. He has tried to remove the lid from the toilet and has flooded the bathroom and the kitchen. He has broken an electric panel and attempted to start a fire. He has emptied out the refrigerator onto the floor. He punches and pushes staff. All of these situations end in a restraint. The group home has called the police for assistance. When police attend the Child stops his negative behaviour as he has mechanical restraints placed on him.

8The Child stated that he wanted to kill himself with a knife and agreed to go to the hospital to talk to someone. He has had brief overnight admissions to the […] area hospital. The Child also had difficulties at school. He has received many suspensions and in March received a lengthy suspension. Dr. A. suggested that all expectations of the Child be scaled down. If the Child did not want to go to school on a given day then he did not have to attend school. The decision was his to make.

9The Society asked the York Region Consultation Team to review his case. The team recommended Youthdale for a complete assessment and treatment plan. They believed that the Child is bright and has potential. They want the Child to return to Sault Ste. Marie following treatment. They stated that there are no other facilities in Sault Ste. Marie to meet the Child’s needs. They believe that the Child does not have a program that is working for him. Dr. A., the Child’s treating psychiatrist in Sault Ste. Marie, did not support the referral to Youthdale.

ANALYSIS

Criterion (a) the Child has a mental disorder.

10Under the Act, a mental disorder is defined as a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition, which grossly impairs a person’s capacity to make reasoned judgements.

11In the evidence package from Youthdale, Ex. 1, Dr. W. believed that the Child has a mental disorder, as stated in the Statement of Reasonable Grounds and further in the Admission Summary. Dr. W. gave a Provisional Diagnosis under Axis I (a) Disruptive Behaviour Disorder and (b) Mood Disorder; Axis II was deferred; Axis III (a) Mild Obesity and (b) Possible Intra Uterine Exposure to Alcohol; Axis IV Psychosocial stressors have been severe over the last few years with coming into care and several placements; and Axis V Current level of adaptive functioning is very poor.

12In testimony, we heard that the Child has control over his outbursts and that perhaps the Child seeks out restraints. The Board was also advised that during outbursts the child is very calm, that he does things for a reaction and that he seeks out restraints to finish the chain of events. The information provided did not support that the Child has a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition, which grossly impairs a person’s capacity to make reasoned judgements as defined by the Act. The Board finds that criterion (a) has not been met.

Criterion (b) the Child has, as a result of the mental disorder, caused, attempted to cause or by words or conduct made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to himself, herself or another person.

13The Board determined that the Child does not have a mental disorder as defined by the Act. The Board heard evidence that the Child broke the nose of one of his caregivers. This happened in a restraint when they butted heads. In the Child’s testimony, he stated that he fights restraints. It is a response to the restraint. The Child made a threat to harm himself with a knife. There was no knife and he was not in the possession of a knife. These situations were not actions taken as a result of a mental disorder as defined by the Act, nor were they a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to himself, or another person. The Board finds that criterion (b) has not been met.

Criterion (c) the secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the Child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to himself, herself, or another person.

14The Board is aware that Youthdale offers a program that would prevent a Child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to himself or another person. The Board finds that criterion (c) has been met.

Criterion (d) treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is available at the place of secure treatment to which the application relates.

15The Board accepts that Youthdale Treatment Centre can provide appropriate treatment to meet the needs of a child with a mental disorder, however, given the Board’s finding that this Child does not have a mental disorder, the Board finds that criterion (d) has not been met.

Criterion (e) no less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the Child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances.

16The Board heard that Dr. A. did not recommend admission to Youthdale for this Child. He recommended that the assessment should be initiated and completed up north. The Child was involved in play therapy and relaxation techniques and seemed to have trust in the therapist. Everything escalated when the Child was removed from foster care and placed in the group home. The Child has been taken out of his known environment and away from visits with his sibling. The Board finds that criterion (e) has not been met.

17On the basis of the evidence presented and in keeping with the principles 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 be released from the secure treatment setting.

Ruth Ann Schedlich

Presiding Member

Frances Sanderson

Panel Member