Dr. S.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate.

Finding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the admission.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the child had a mental disorder, that she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

As criteria (a), (b), and (e) were not met, the Board allowed the application and ordered the child's release.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, concluding that her aggressive behaviour was the result of parent-child conflict rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition.

Furthermore, the Board found that the child did not cause or threaten serious bodily harm.

As the criteria for admission were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The 13-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the applicant had a mental disorder and that the program would be effective and appropriate, it was not satisfied that she had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of the disorder.

Furthermore, the Board found that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been adequately explored or ruled out.

As all five criteria must be met to maintain the admission, the Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants sought a review of several complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of their children, the services provided, access changes, and case worker turnover.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing most issues were before the court or already decided.

The Board agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over the complaints related to court forms, apprehension, services, access, and the psychologist's assessment, as these were matters dealt with in the child protection proceedings.

On the merits of the complaint regarding excessive case worker turnover, the Board found that while the turnover was not optimal, the Society had informed the applicants and had valid reasons for the changes.

The application was dismissed.