D.D. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2010 CFSRB 10

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

D.D.

v.

Youthdale Treatment Centres

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: February 17, 2010

Citation: 2010 CFSRB 10

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

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) by D.D., born April […], 1999 (the “Child” or the “Applicant”), for a review of his emergency admission to the Secure Treatment Program at the Youthdale Treatment Centre, (“Youthdale” or the “Respondent”) pursuant to section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act” or the “CFSA”).

2The Board must decide whether all of the criteria set out in subsection 124 (2) of the CFSA were met at the time of admission, on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the best interests of the Child. The Respondent’s position is that all five criteria were met and that the application should therefore be denied. The Child’s position is that three of the criteria, namely 124 (a), (b) and (e), were not met and that consequently, he should be released. If the Board finds that one of the criteria is not met, the Child must be released.

3Pursuant to section 124(13) of the Act, upon review,

The Board shall make an order releasing the child from the secure treatment program unless the Board is satisfied that the child meets the criteria for emergency admission set out in clauses 124(2)(a) to (e).

4The relevant considerations in this case are captured by the criteria as set out in the legislative provisions as follows:

124(2) The administrator may admit a child to the secure treatment program on an application under subsection (1) for a period not to exceed thirty days where the administrator believes on reasonable grounds that,

a. the child has a mental disorder;

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;

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;

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

e. no less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances.

5For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Child did not meet criterion (b) at the time of his admission and ordered his release from the secure treatment program at Youthdale.

BACKGROUND

6D.D. is a ten-year-old boy who resides with his mother, A.M., and his nine-year-old sister, M.. His father has been separated from his mother since D.D. was three years old. D.D. is a grade 5 student and attended a Catholic school in the community until November 2009. He was admitted to a behavioral classroom in November at [a Centre] due to problems he was experiencing in the regular classroom.

7D.D.’s mother contacted Youthdale on January […], 2010 because D.D.’s behavior was out of control and she was having difficulty managing her son at home. She also informed Youthdale that he was unwilling to attend his day program at [the Centre]. D.D.’s refusal to attend the day treatment program started after an incident at [the Centre] during which he was physically restrained by staff in the program.

8D.D. has been assessed as having severe language problems, conduct disorder, mild attention deficit hyperactive disorder and trauma. For the purposes of this decision, the Board assumes that D.D. has a mental disorder as defined in the Act.

ANALYSIS

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.

9Section 124 is under Part V1, Extraordinary Measures, of the Act. There must be extraordinary circumstances before a child is placed on an emergency basis in a secure treatment unit. The right to review the placement before the Board is a significant safeguard, which is in place to protect the Child’s right to liberty. The admitting program, Youthdale, has a duty to present strong and compelling evidence to support its position that on admission, a child has met the criteria set out in section 124(2) of the Act.

10The Board was not satisfied that at the time of admission, the Child, 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 or another person.

11D.D.’s mother testified that D.D.’s behavior had been escalating over the last year and both she and the school were concerned about his outbursts. D.D.’s problematic behavior began in grade 4. His mother attempted to obtain supports in the community for D.D. in recognition of his need to have male role models and mentors in his life. She had waitlisted him for the Big Brothers program, as well as the Youth Assisting Youth Program. D.D. no longer wished to see his father because of threats made by him in the spring of 2009.

12D.D.’s mother testified that she had contacted [the Centre] due to her past history of domestic violence and D.D.’s behavior. D.D. was originally placed on a waitlist, but because of their involvement with a children’s aid society, an assessment was pushed forward and D.D. was admitted to [the Centre] day treatment program in November 2009. His mother stated that D.D. did well during the first two weeks in the day program, but following a physical restraint by staff in the program, D.D. refused to attend. D.D.’s mother stated that the restraint had been difficult for D.D.. She worked with the program staff to encourage D.D. to go back, but these efforts were unsuccessful. She stated that during this time, she sought advice from D.D.’s pediatrician who referred her to Youthdale.

13D.D.’s mother further testified that his behavior escalated at home during the time he refused to return to [the Centre] program. He destroyed things when he didn’t get what he wanted, or when he was asked to help or comply with rules. She testified that he had broken a number of phones, smashed a Rogers playbox, kicked and broke a bedroom window. He was verbally abusive to her and sometimes to his sister. These incidents occurred in the two weeks before his admission to Youthdale. The evening before his admission to Youthdale, a neighbour friend interceded in an incident and struck D.D. with a broom handle. The police were called and they notified the local children’s aid society. The society is currently conducting an investigation into the matter.

14D.D.’s mother testified that he needs help and that, in her view, it is not normal for a child to have so much anger and she is concerned about things getting worse. She also stated that D.D.’s behavior reminds her of his dad’s behavior. She stated that both she and her daughter are seeking counseling for themselves as well.

15D.D.’s mother testified that he kicked her on one occasion and on another, he bit her hand when she was physically holding him. She also stated that she was concerned about her daughter’s safety, but agreed D.D. had not caused her any physical harm.

16D.D. was present during all of the proceedings, but did not testify. He appeared sad throughout the proceedings and at a number of points openly wept. A number of breaks were taken and offers made to him to absent himself if he wished.

17The Board accepts that D.D. is a sad and angry boy who is unable to express his feelings in constructive ways and has a problem with impulse control. The Board also accepts that his mother has issues of her own, that she is having difficulties parenting D.D. and that she has attempted to obtain supports to assist herself, D.D. and her daughter. The Board heard evidence regarding D.D.’s destructive and non-compliant behavior and a couple of incidents where he had lashed out at his mother. However, the Board did not hear any evidence that D.D. had caused or threatened to cause serious bodily harm to himself or others. Therefore the Board concludes that criterion 124(2)(b) has not been met.

CONCLUSION

18Pursuant to section 124(13) of the CFSA, the Board, having satisfied itself that the criteria in subsections 124(2)(b) has not been met, released the Child, D.D., on February 6, 2010 from the Youthdale Treatment Centre.

Gail Gonda

Presiding Member

Alina Lazor

Panel Member

Lorna King

Panel Member