Applicant v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County, 2012 CFSRB 45

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

APPLICANT

v.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF SIMCOE COUNTY

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: October 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 45

Indexed as: Applicant v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (CFSA s.36)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant [ ] (the “Applicant”) filed an application under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on August 23, 2012 for a review of her placement at [the Facility] and a determination of her placement.

2The Applicant brought her application because she had her placement reviewed by the Residential Placement Advisory Committee in the [ ] Region on August [ ], 2012. She was not happy with the RPAC recommendation that she remain at [the Facility], where she was placed by the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society”).

3This Application was heard by the Board on October 2 and 3, 2012. The Board had to determine, based on the best interests of the Applicant, the appropriate placement for her. The issue was whether or not another placement, closer to her family was appropriate. Also at issue was the appropriateness of [the Facility] as a placement, because of the Applicant’s specific needs and concerns.

4The Applicant’s position was that she wanted to be moved from [the Facility], her current placement, to a placement closer to her family that would help her move towards independence.

5The Society’s position was that the Applicant needs the current placement at [the Facility] at least until February 2013, to stabilize.

6The Board orders that the Applicant be discharged from the residential placement at [the Facility]. She must be moved from [the Facility] and placed closer to her family. The reasons for this decision are set out below.

BACKGROUND

7The Applicant will be seventeen in December of 2012. She likes to read, work out, draw and write. She has been in care since May 2010. She came into care because of conflict with her mother including failure to go to school. She was made a crown ward. The Applicant has depression, anxiety, learning and other special needs. Before coming into care the Applicant lived with an aunt and uncle in [city ] but this did not work out. Her first placement in care was at [Group Home]. This placement ended in April, 2011 because they felt they had provided what services they could. The Applicant was then moved to [a group home] in [city a]. [The group home] is operated by [ ] (‘agency”), the same agency that operates [the Facility]. The Applicant’s mother lives in [city b] which is forty five minutes away from [city a]. Her father lives in [city c], not far from [city a]. The Applicant met her boyfriend, [ ] in [city a]. They have been together for over a year and consider this a long-term relationship.

8In November of 2012, the Applicant’s boyfriend’s mother who had presented a plan to care for the Applicant in October, turned on her, saying cruel things about the Applicant. This devastated the Applicant and had a significant impact on her emotionally, affecting her behaviours. The Program Manager at [the group home] testified that the boyfriend’s mother’s behaviour was inappropriate and that the Applicant experienced it as a betrayal. The Applicant needed a lot of processing assistance and support. This experience also put pressure on the Applicant’s relationship with her boyfriend as did the death of one of his friends.

9The Applicant had one experience with alcohol poisoning on May [ ], 2012. In July of 2012, during the time when she and her boyfriend were having difficulties, the Applicant started leaving [the group home] more frequently without permission and staying out longer. Things escalated and staff believed she came back to the group home drunk or high on several occasions. She was also refusing to take her medication or was unable to because of the timing of when she returned to [the group home]. There is a consensus that when on medication, the Applicant does much better. While her Society worker, [ ], (‘worker”) was away on holidays, the Clinical Program Manager at [the group home] (“Program Manager”) made the decision to move the Applicant to [the Facility] for a period of stabilization. The plan was to have her return to [the group home]. The goal was to separate the Applicant from her peers in the group home and in the community due to their involvement in drugs and alcohol. [The Facility] is a rural placement in [city d], over three hours away from [city a]. The Applicant was [not] informed of this decision until it was time to move. When the Applicant’s worker returned from vacation, the Society made the decision at the seven day plan of care meeting that [the Facility] would be the Applicant’s permanent placement. However, it was indicated that at some unspecified point, they would consider a move closer to her family. In the August [ ], 2012 plan of care documents, it is noted that in February, the Society would explore a change in placement with a return to [city a].

10The Applicant requested a review of her placement by the RPAC. The RPAC meeting was held on August [ ], 2012 and they confirmed her placement at [the Facility]. RPAC recommended that she make use of the resources offered at [the Facility].

11The Applicant did not like the way the decision was made to move her and then, to keep her at [the Facility]. She did not like being so far away from her home community and supports including her family, her boyfriend and her new job. She wants to live closer to her supports in order to make the transition into adulthood and independence. The Applicant worked with the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (‘Advocacy Office”) in trying to get her placement changed, first, through the RPAC and then by bringing an application to this Board on August 23, 2012.

ANALYSIS

12Under section 36(1) of the Act, a child who is twelve years of age or older and lives in a residential placement that she objects to can apply to the Board “for a determination of where he [or she] should remain or be placed” if the child has already had an advisory committee review and is dissatisfied with the committee’s recommendation. The Board must conduct a review and having done so, may:

36 (6)

(a) order that the child be transferred to another residential placement, if the Board is satisfied that the other residential placement is available;

(b) order that the child be discharged from residential placement; or

(c) confirm the existing placement.

13According to section 1(1), the most important purpose of the Act is to “promote the best interests, protection and well being of children”. Section 36 does not come within a section of the Act that defines “best interests”. While the Board is determining placement on a fresh (de novo) basis and not reviewing the RPAC decision, the Board took guidance from the factors that the RPAC is mandated to consider in section 34 (10) of the Act. The Board also took guidance from the definitions contained in the Act relating to child protection and adoption placement [s.37(3);s.136 (2)]. The Board took into account the following relevant considerations based on the sections noted above, which are also consistent with the case law about “best interests”:

• The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, including special needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs, including programs available for the child and whether she would benefit from the program.

• The appropriateness of the placement in the circumstances, including whether a less restrictive alternative would be more appropriate.

• The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

• The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

• The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

• The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

14With respect to the less restrictive placement consideration, under subsections 61(2)(a) and (e) of the Act, the Society is obliged to choose a residential placement that is the least restrictive and that takes into account the child’s wishes if they can be reasonably ascertained. Upon placement review under section 35(3) of the Act, the RPAC advisory committee must recommend a less restrictive service where it considers that the provision of a less restrictive service would be more appropriate.

15The onus is on the Society to show that the current placement at [the Facility] is in the Applicant’s best interests, on the balance of probabilities. After hearing the evidence, the Board was not satisfied that placement at [the Facility] was in the Applicant’s best interests. The Board determined that placement closer to her home community, preferably in a treatment foster home was in the Applicant’s best interests.

Family and Continuity of Care

16With respect to the importance of the child’s development of a positive relationship with her parents and her secure place as a family member, the Applicant’s relationship with her mother, father and family is important to the Applicant. The Society agrees that it is important for her, as does the agency. The Applicant has emotional difficulties which are related to her experiences of loss linked to her separation from her family. She described that because she has had several moves, the move from [the group home], triggered these feelings. The Applicant’s coming into care was due to her “rocky” relationship with her mother who was caring for four younger siblings at the time. The Applicant was skipping school, was oppositional and she says, jealous of her siblings. She was also suffering from probable depression and anxiety and un-assessed learning, attentional and developmental challenges. When she first moved to [the group home], she was not speaking with her mother. While at [the group home], things improved. She kept in regular contact with her mother, seeing her approximately once a month and talking regularly with her on the phone. She also spoke with her siblings on the phone and had overnight visits at home. Her relationship with her mother has improved significantly over the past year and a half and they now talk about everything. According to the mother, the relationship, as of now, is “great” and she allows the Applicant to vent in order to express her concerns and feelings.

17The Applicant’s mother testified that she was prepared to present a plan to the Society to have the Applicant return to her home. She loves and supports her daughter and wants to be there for her. She wants to attend counselling with the Applicant and work towards her daughter moving home. At the very least, she wants her nearby so that they can go to counselling and see each other more regularly. Both the Applicant and her mother expressed that they now have the type of mother daughter bond that was missing when the Applicant went into care. They understand that it is not the role of this Board to decide whether the Applicant returns to her mother’s care as only the Court can do so, on a status review. However, the expression of interest to live together by both the mother and daughter is important to the Board’s decision about placement.

18Since moving to [the Facility], the Applicant has seen her mother twice: once alone and once with her siblings. [City d] is three and a half hours each way from [city b]. Both had to travel to [city e] where they spent the day together. [City e] is one and a half to two hours each way from [city b]. Neither the Applicant nor her mother are based in [city e]. While they still speak on the phone, the frequency and type of contact has been significantly reduced. There are no visits in the home community and to date, none in the home environment. For the first time, the Applicant will be spending a weekend at home on Thanksgiving.

19The Applicant has regular phone contact with her father. He has been asked by his work to limit calls during the work day. When she lived in [city a], the Applicant had visits with her father in the community. They went to movies or the mall. When the Applicant was moved, the father asked for her to be closer to home. She has had only two visits with him since moving to [the Facility].

20The psycho-educational assessment, completed by a psychologist in September of 2012 confirms that the Applicant is suffering from a high level of emotional distress and an extremely high level of anxiety, with her major worry being her separation from her family and the community she knows.

21The Board finds that the distance between [the Facility] and the Applicant’s home community creates a significant barrier to access to her family which is not in the Applicant’s best interests. The move to [city d] has negatively impacted the continuity of relationships between the Applicant and her family. The distance prevents family contact and supports of the type and frequency needed. The Applicant’s goal is to live at home or near her family home. To maintain and build on her relationships requires the Applicant be physically present in the area to see her family, to attend counselling with her mother and to reintegrate into regular family routines as much as is possible. The Program Manager for [the group home] testified that her agency would be able to offer local supports to the Applicant should the plan be for her to return home, including staff working in the home with the family and the Applicant. The Manager for [the Facility] testified that they could offer supports but it would be on weekends and holidays only. Even if the goal is not a return home to live, the more time spent in the home, with the family, and at counselling, the better for the Applicant. The Applicant must be close to the family home to benefit from the family contact that is being offered to her. The Applicant and her mother have achieved a level of communication that is supportive to the wellbeing of the Applicant. The Applicant has a relationship with her father. To remove her from these supports has had a negative impact on the Applicant who has become more withdrawn and spends more time alone in her room. She has had a re-surfacing of negative thoughts because she is saddened at being up-rooted. The psychologist confirmed that the separation from family has significantly, negatively impacted the Applicant emotionally.

22The Applicant’s need for a relationship with her family is one of the most compelling reasons for her to leave her current placement. It is simply too far from her family. Her mother cannot be expected to transport four children aged 2, 4, 6 and 7 to [city e] from [city b] to allow for sibling contact. The Applicant wants to be the big sister to her siblings and to spend time with her step father. The distance means that the family cannot have normal interaction whether it be in the home or the home community. The distance also prevents counselling between the Applicant and her mother. The Applicant would like to feel ‘normal’ and part of that is normalizing her contact with her family. The Board understands that the Applicant and her family will continue to have challenges but the only way to effectively build on the gains made is to have frequent, in person contact, counselling and as much integration into the mother’s home as the Applicant and her family choose. This may be an evolving process but it is one that cannot be facilitated effectively through relationships that are at a distance from each other geographically.

23The Applicant’s relationship with her boyfriend is also important and should not be minimized. She and her boyfriend have been through difficult times including the death of one of his friends. The distance created when the Applicant moved to [the Facility] has also proved to have a negative impact on them as a young couple in a developing and meaningful relationship. They are nonetheless still together. The mother has met him and sees him as a strong support to the Applicant. He is in college for [a program] and has talked about being with the Applicant in the long term. He is doing very well in college, getting good marks. The [group home] Program Manager suspected that he was supplying drugs or alcohol to the Applicant. She offered no real information of any kind to back up this allegation. The Applicant denies this allegation. Further, her mother does not describe him at all in these terms. According to the Applicant, he does not drink or do drugs and has tried to stop the Applicant from doing them. He also encourages her to stop smoking. When she was involved with drug and alcohol use, the Applicant was struggling with a brief period of separation from her boyfriend. They have now worked things through. He has been to [the group home] but the Program Manager has not met him. Further, the Applicant’s worker has not met him. The Board must rely on the evidence of those who have met the boyfriend and not on blanket speculation about his character. The Applicant sees him as a positive influence on her life and part of her motivation for now attending school and earning high school credits for the first time. The mother agrees. Since her move to [the Facility] in [city d], the Applicant has seen her boyfriend only once. The Applicant has been separated from a major support in her life, resulting in furthering her feelings of sadness and isolation.

24The Applicant’s relationships with her family and her boyfriend are tied to her long term goals. A move from her home community was a disruption in the continuity of her care. It impacted her negatively in terms of the most meaningful relationships in her life. She had also just started a job at a retail store which she enjoyed. The Applicant was moved for longer than originally planned away from where she had established roots. She does not want to invest in the [city d] community because it is not her community. She does not know anyone in [city d]. Instead, she has withdrawn. The Applicant will be an adult in just over a year. In order for her to succeed as an adult, she wants to re-establish her roots in her home community with the supports that mean the most to her. That is a reasonable approach. In such a short time frame, months make a difference in terms of maintaining ties and putting options in place. Thus, to hold off on the Applicant’s reintegration into her own community does not make sense from the perspective of a continuity of care. Nor does it make sense in terms of the positive, secure family relationships she is now enjoying. Given her transitional age, these are critical to her development into adulthood.

Special Needs and Program Expectations: Stabilization Period;

The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

25The Board must consider the Applicant’s physical, mental and emotional level of development. The Board must also consider the related best interests factor: the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, including special needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs, including programs available for the child and whether she would benefit from the program. There was no dispute that the Applicant has special needs. The dispute is in terms of how and when these needs are best served. The Society wants the Applicant to remain in her current, “stable” placement longer and the Applicant wants to move closer to her family now, building on her gains.

26The Applicant has recently had a psycho-educational assessment. Her mother has been asking for one since a psychiatric assessment in 2010 that recommended psycho-educational assessment. The Applicant has refused to be assessed at times in the past but recently, consented. There was not always consistent follow up by the Society regarding pursuing the assessments. The Applicant has been diagnosed as having mild developmental delay with extremely low cognitive functioning, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder-combined type and oppositional defiance disorder. The psychologist cautions however that developmental delay is a provisional diagnosis because of the emotional factors that the Applicant is being treated for. Things like anxiety and depression can affect outcomes. The Applicant feels that the assessment is not reflective of her ability as she did not complete all aspects. The Applicant’s first Advocate was surprised by the assessment given the Applicant’s presentation. The psychologist’s assessment confirms that the Applicant can process information well if it is presented to her clearly in a way that ensures she understands. The Applicant demonstrates an ability to problem solve but needs a lot of support with communication and academics. Allowing for discrepancies in the testing, the results clearly show that the Applicant has special and complex needs. An earlier assessment would have been beneficial in terms of explaining the Applicant’s avoidance of school and subsequent acting out behaviours and in terms of putting in place special accommodations to assist her in her living and school environments. The psychologist makes a series of recommendations. These include providing the Applicant with a structured, predictable and welcoming environment. The Applicant’s mother spoke of her social anxiety and those who have worked with her have noticed her withdrawn and “down”, particularly at [the Facility].

27The causes for the Applicant’s drug and alcohol use and increased absences from [the group home] in July of 2012 are not specifically known. She testified that it was a difficult time for her, during which she was apart from her boyfriend whose friend had died. She was off of her medication or using it inconsistently for periods of time. Her medication is for depression, anxiety and attention related needs. The Applicant was moved because of her behaviours during this time frame. The rationale in moving her was to meet her need to be safe and to stop the drug and alcohol use.

28However, the lack of clarity of the Society’s placement plan was a consistent theme for the Advocates and the Applicant. This is concerning given the Applicant’s developmental and emotional needs. The Society worker would not commit to putting a time line in place for the Applicant’s return to [the group home] or her home community. She said it was now the permanent placement but on the other hand, would look at moving the Applicant closer to home. She would not say how long she expected the Applicant to sustain improved behaviours before considering or arranging a return to the home community. When pressed for a time line, she said that, “first, we need community time, then semi-independent living”. She said that it is “hard to give a time line” but they had no plan to move the applicant imminently. When pressed further, she said that the society usually looked at placement changes consistent with school semesters. The [the group home] Area Manager testified that originally, the Applicant was moved for a five day stabilization period. She would generally look for thirty days of stabilization. The [the Facility] Area Manager confirmed that the Applicant was originally moved for five days, until her worker returned from vacation. She was then told that it would be a thirty day stabilization period. The time lines put in the plan of care documents are that the Society will “explore” a move back to [city a] in February 2013. In its submissions, the Society’s acknowledged that the Applicant had been stable for two and a half months (75 days). Their position was that they wanted stable behaviour from the Applicant until the next school semester (February 2013) to ease school change. There has been no concrete commitment that if the Applicant continues to do well, she will be moved in February 2013 or sooner.

29According to the Advocates, an appropriate plan for stabilization would have included specific time lines and expectations, especially given the Applicant’s challenges. The Applicant feels like she experienced “broken telephone” and “doesn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel because she doesn’t know what she is working for.”

30The Applicant has been stable for two and a half months. She is taking her medication, and appreciates the importance of continuing to do so. The Applicant is going to counselling, attending a substance abuse program and following the house rules. She is going to school and earning credits for the first time in high school. She works independently on schooling at [the Facility] in the afternoon. She created a fundraising initiative in her school on substance abuse education. She has not been involved with the use of drugs or alcohol. The worker testified that they would like the Applicant to demonstrate time in the community without drug or alcohol use or staying out late. The Applicant walks to and from school, in the community. She testified that she has access to drugs at school and has already demonstrated that she can be trusted in the community through her school attendance. She does not want to go out in [city d] because she does not know the community and has no friends. To her, forcing her to go out to prove she can be successful in the community is not a proper measure of her commitment or success because she has daily access to the community at school and has not run away or used substances.

31The Applicant testified that she is not sure how much longer she can sustain her motivation at a place she is so unhappy. The Manager at [the Facility] describes her as being very “down” all of the time. The Applicant has made consistent progress for over two months in part to earn her way back to her home community. She is also motivated by her boyfriend and friends in college and by her age. The Program Manager for [the group home] agreed that it is appropriate to reward the Applicant’s efforts. However, the Society and the [the group home] Program Manager believe the Applicant needs more time with good behaviour.

32The Board finds that the Applicant’s special needs may be a factor in whether or not she can sustain her current success. The Board is concerned that set backs would result in the Applicant being put on a lower behaviour level on the points system, resulting in further delays in her returning to the [city a] area. Further, her frustration, severe unhappiness and isolation and her experiences in the current group home (discussed below) are also factors. The Applicant has participated actively in the substance abuse program and has benefited from it to the point of wanting to help youth with substance abuse problems as a future career goal. The Board recognizes the importance to the Applicant of recognizing her success. The stabilization period has been sustained for far longer than the norm of 30 days. Consequently, the Applicant’s efforts should be acknowledged with a return to her home community. Both [the group home] and [the Facility] have the same semi-independent living program, the difference being the proximity of [the group home] to the home community.

33Further, the Applicant has not been provided with a psychiatrist at [the Facility]. She had a local psychiatrist in [city f]. Although a referral was made, no one has followed up to ensure this support for the Applicant while at [the Facility]. From a treatment, medication oversight and continuity of care perspective, it would be better for the Applicant to continue with her psychiatrist who is in [city f]. This would require a placement closer to [city f] as it has not been facilitated through [the Facility] in [city d].

34The Applicant is at a point where to benefit from the strides she has made and to have access to a full range of services aimed at independence with support, placement closer to her home community is in her best interests. Now that her special needs have been more clearly assessed, those working with her in her home community will be better equipped to support the Applicant.

Appropriateness of the Placement: Environment and Experiences at the Current [Facility]

35The Board considered the appropriateness of the Applicant’s placement in her circumstances. The Board found that the placement at [the Facility] was not appropriate for the Applicant, due to the environment and the Applicant’s experiences at the [Facility].

36The Applicant wrote to the Board and read into evidence, that she has had previous placements “but nothing can compare to where I am living now, I was brought here to “stabilize”, but I have never felt so emotionally unstable in my live, I have never been so mistreated. I have never been talked down to like this, and I have never felt so powerless. I am around so much negativity that it makes it nearly impossible to work on myself. I see things I don’t want to see, I hear things I don’t want to here, and no matter how hard I fight this, it feels useless.” [The Facility] uses a behavioural model and is focussed on the level system and compliance with rules and behavioural expectations.

37At [the Facility], the Applicant experienced her first restraint. She described a situation in which, after a meeting in which she was frustrated, she lost control and needed some space. Four staff were at her door. She felt claustrophobic. She had been throwing things in her room. She asked them to please move. She tried to walk by and they grabbed her and put her on the floor for fifteen minutes. She was crying. She testified that she was acting out because the meeting brought up her feelings of powerlessness and of not being listened to.

38The Applicant also described the stress she experiences because of the actions of her peers in the house who are “pretty out of control”. Her peers are aged 14 to 17. One girl is seven months pregnant and has tried to kill her baby at least once a week. This girl had temper tantrums and punched herself in the stomach. The Applicant told staff that she “can’t handle this and doesn’t want to see it”. Once, she called an ambulance when the girl tried to kill herself and the baby but staff said “it is under control”. According to the Applicant, another girl tried to kill herself and got restrained. The Applicant stayed there because she and the girl “feed off each other”. This girl vomited and was not allowed to wash off the vomit. The girl was teased and taunted by staff who touched her murdered mother’s things. This girl also threatened to slit her own throat and kill staff. The Applicant testified that there a lot of crises every single week and she does not want to be around that level of crisis. She never saw anything like this at [the group home]. The mother has heard youth screaming and swearing in the background and staff arguing, when she is on the phone with the Applicant.

39The Applicant likes to be called [her first name] and not [her nick name] (except by family). Her mother testified that staff repeatedly taunted her, calling her [ ], even when she asked them to stop. This escalated, making the Applicant angry. This was something she had shared with her mother. While the Manager for [the Facility] knew that the Applicant does not like being called [ ], she did not know why. She was aware this was a trigger but there was no evidence that she had taken steps to ensure that this kind of provocation of the Applicant did not occur.

40The Applicant testified about a time a male staff of about fifty commented to her at the pool “that is a sexy bathing suit”. She was “creeped out” and told staff and apparently the individual is not allowed to work with her individually. According to the Applicant, another staff said “come on baby girl, just hit me, we’ve had bigger and better than you. … If you act like less, we will treat you like less, spoiled little brat”. When she has cried and asked to call the advocate, staff said words to the effect of “there is no point calling the Advocate, they can’t do anything and they will get you fired up to do what you want.”

41The Applicant told her mother about a time when she put her fork in the butter at dinner accidentally and had to pay for the butter. According to the mother, she has no phone “like a regular teenager”. [The Facility]’s Manager confirmed that until she had reached level B1 on the behavioural level system recently, staff had to dial the phone for the Applicant. She has now earned the privilege of dialling the phone herself.

42There was no direct evidence to contradict what the Applicant said had happened in the current [facility]. The Board therefore accepts the Applicant’s version of events. What the Applicant described is an environment that is causing her to feel more anxious and withdrawn. It is distracting her from working on her own therapeutic goals. The circumstances surrounding the restraint of the Applicant who is a mature female adolescent, are concerning. The taunting of the Applicant by intentionally calling her [ ] against her explicit wishes and request is also concerning. The Board is concerned that if this type of behaviour by staff is tolerated and continues, the Applicant could easily be provoked into acting out and undoing the progress she has made to date. The sexualized comments made by a staff are unacceptable. Further, the stress the Applicant feels at being exposed to the crises of her peers is emotionally detrimental to the Applicant. The environment in [the Facility] is too volatile, chaotic and not in the Applicant’s best interests.

Views and Wishes

43The Act mandates that the Society take into account a youth’s views and wishes in decisions about their placement [s. 61 (2) (e)]. The Society should have consulted with the Applicant before moving her to [the Facility] but didn’t. Instead, they let the service provider, the agency, apparently unilaterally decide that the Applicant had to move and move right away. The decision is that of the Society and they should have made it and managed it. They did not wait for the worker to return from vacation and carry out a planned process, involving the Applicant. While the Program Manager may have mentioned possible moves as a result of behaviours to the Applicant in a group with other girls, the Applicant does not recall this. In any case, there was no clear warning, to the Applicant, in concrete terms that she could process. The worker testified that the Society does not say to youth, if you don’t participate, we will move you. Had the Applicant been warned concretely, she may have stopped staying out (absent without leave) and substance use. The Applicant accepts that a stabilization period was needed but this could have happened closer to home, after speaking with her. The relevance of this now, is that the way she was moved and the shifting message about how long she would be staying (from five days to 30 days, to indefinitely but maybe February) has influenced her views and wishes about the placement. She does not want to be there and has done everything in her power, appropriately using the Advocacy Office and the processes in place, to move closer to home. She testified that she is willing to listen to options as long as she can have input. While she is happy that she is doing better and well in school, she is so far way from her family and what she is used to that she is “completely unhappy.”

44The Applicant is almost seventeen. She is in a placement that she does not want to be in, that is negative for her in many ways and is too far from home. The Applicant’s testimony is that she is committed to making things work with her family. She wrote and told the Board: “I am going to be 18 in 14 months and I think it is important for me to be in a positive environment before I am 100% ready to move into adulthood. I need my family support, the only people in the world that will love me no matter how much I screw up. They will always be here for me, and that’s what I need right now in my life”.

45The Board finds that the Applicant’s views and wishes are clear. She does not want to stay at [the Facility]. The Applicant will be an adult in fourteen months and wants to put in place a life plan that involves her family and her boyfriend. The Board gives significant weight to the Applicant’s views and wishes because of her transitional age. Her views and wishes are consistent with the Board’s other considerations and favour a move out of [city d], closer to her home community.

Discharge from Current placement and placement options

46The Board has determined that because of the importance of the Applicant’s connection to her family and her boyfriend, her special needs, her experiences in the group home environment and her views and wishes in light of her transition into adulthood, the placement at [the Facility] is not appropriate for the Applicant.

47Under the Act, the Board has two options when the placement is not appropriate: to name another placement, when it is satisfied that one is available or to discharge the Applicant from the current placement. In this case, the Society presented no details about any placement options except [the group home]. The Applicant experienced some challenges at [the group home]. Although staffs are supposed to follow youth when they leave without permission, they did not do so. The Applicant felt it was too easy to leave the facility. She did, however, feel that staff there supported her at times, particularly after her boyfriend’s mother was verbally aggressive towards her. She had one staff there that she was very close with and was upset when she left for a time. [The group home] is not as behaviourally focussed as [the Facility] and the Program Manager, as a clinician, has the tools to modify the Applicant’s program and staffing responses now that the psychological assessment has been done. The peer with whom the Applicant was going “absent without leave” and using drugs is no longer at [the group home]. Further, the Program Manager in cooperation with a police/community initiative was able to remove from the community the people responsible for an influx of drugs that had a negative influence on the Applicant. [The group home] is forty five minutes from the Applicant’s mother and not far from her father. The Applicant’s boyfriend is in college but still has ties to [city a]. It is not clear if he commutes to school or returns home on weekends. All of these are positive things about [the group home] and the [city a] community.

48However, the Board has concerns about the way the Applicant was transferred by [the group home], so far away from her family, without consultation with the Society or the Applicant. The Society had some concerns about the [the group home] staff in terms of staffing levels and follow through but offered no real specifics. The worker’s testimony was that the Applicant did not do well at [the group home]. However, the documentary evidence and that of the [the group home] Program Manager indicate that there was a period of improvement and stability and some successes in terms of the Applicants participation in the programs offered there. In any case, the agency also has other group homes located in the vicinity of the Applicant’s family and [city a], including in [city e]. The Program Manager considers that two of these placements would be appropriate for the Applicant. She was willing to explore these options but at some point, the Society asked her not to.

49The Board is also aware of its obligation to consider the least restrictive placement. The Applicant has been in group care since coming into care. There was never a picture of her developmental, learning, and coping needs. There is now a psychological assessment that gives some clear guidance and recognition of special needs that could affect the Applicant’s behaviours and should inform her placement. With this tool and the support of the psychologist and the Applicant’s [city e] psychiatrist, the Board finds that the Society must fulfil its obligation to explore less restrictive options for the Applicant such as a treatment foster home. Group care is not the best option for the Applicant given her now more clearly defined needs, her transitional age and her strong commitment to working towards building strong relationships with her family and her boyfriend. Further, the Applicant has demonstrated by words and in her actions that she is negatively influenced by her peers in group settings, both emotionally and behaviourally. It was also made clear by the Applicant that she prefers a family-like environment.

50The Board did not hear evidence about specific foster homes but heard evidence that one was available in [city b] and that the agency has treatment foster homes that are available to the Society in the [city e] area. The capacity of these placements to meet the Applicant’s special needs at the same time as recognizing her transition over the next fourteen months into independence as a young adult must be assessed and in a way that takes into account the Applicant’s views and wishes. Her “buy in” to her next placement is essential to help her have a successful transition including developing her family and community ties. The Advocates who have worked closely with the Applicant to help represent her views and wishes, testified that they will play an active role in helping to locate an appropriate placement and that they have resources available to them to assist with this part of their mandate.

51The Board is satisfied that other placements are accessible to the Society for the Applicant. However, the Board will not name a placement because the Society must explore the less intrusive option of treatment foster homes. The Board did not have sufficient evidence about the [city b] foster home, the agency’s treatment foster homes or other options to name a specific, available placement that would be in the Applicant’s best interests. The Board is therefore discharging the Applicant from her current placement at [the Facility], which means she must leave that placement now and go to another Society placement.

52However, nothing stops the Applicant from agreeing to stay at [the Facility] temporarily while another placement can be found in her home community. The parties may also agree to a temporary placement at [the group home] while other options are explored, to avoid multiple placements. The Applicant is familiar with and comfortable with [the group home] as her longest placement and has expressed a desire to return there. Again, the Board is not naming [the group home] as the long term placement because of the need to look at treatment foster care as the appropriate placement for the Applicant to transition into a more-family focussed but independent life.

CONCLUSION

53The Board finds that continued placement at [the Facility] is not in the Applicant’s continuing best interests.

54The Board orders that the Applicant be discharged from the residential placement at [the Facility] and moved to a placement closer to her family, preferably a treatment foster home.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

55Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.