K.R. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2012 CFSRB 22

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

K.R.

v.

Youthdale Treatment Centres

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: June 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 22

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

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application by K.R. (the “Child”) born March [ ], 1998 for a review of her Secure Treatment Program at the Youthdale Treatment Centre (“Youthdale”), pursuant to section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”). The application is dated June 5, 2012 and relates to the Child’s admission to Youthdale on June [ ], 2012. The hearing was held on June 7, 2012.

2The Board must decide, on a balance of probabilities, whether each of the criteria set out in subsection 124(2) of the Act was met at the time of admission. The Respondent’s position was that all five criteria had been met and that the application should therefore be denied. The Child’s position was that all five criteria had not been met and that she should 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).

4For the reasons that follow the Board finds that the Child did not meet criterion (a) as set out in s.124(2) that the Child has a mental disorder. As such, the Board was obliged to release the Child and the Board’s reasons do not address criteria b) through e).

BACKGROUND

5The Child is a 14-year old girl living with her mother and twin brother. Her father is deceased. She is attending school in grade 8 and had been getting good grades until recently. During the last six months, she has been suspended twice, once on February [ ], 2012 for possession of marijuana and once on May [ ], 2012 for “persistent opposition to authority”.

6The Child has been involved in conflict with the mother which has intensified more recently to the point of physical aggression. During these conflicts, the mother has called police for assistance. The Children’s Aid Society (“the society”) has been involved after a referral from the school regarding the mother’s drinking and the care of the children.

7The mother has accessed services in the community. The Child has seen [ ] (the “Psychiatrist”) once or twice in the last six months and previously for five or six sessions. The Psychiatrist wanted to prescribe prozac for the Child, however, the mother did not agree. The Psychiatrist wanted to refer the Child to a community clinic since the mother was unwilling to medicate. The Child has been attending several [community agency] [ ], Addictions Counseling, and is on the waiting list for [ ]. The program at [ ] may become available this summer or early fall.

8The mother applied to Youthdale and the Child was admitted on June [ ], 2012.

ANALYSIS

9The criteria that the Board must apply in secure treatment reviews are set out in the following legislative provision:

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.

10Each of the above criteria must be met at the time of admission to confirm the Child’s placement at Youthdale. In this application, the Board was not satisfied that the Child had a mental disorder and thus the Board released the Child.

Criterion (a) the Child has a mental disorder.

11The Board is not satisfied that at the time of admission, the Child had a mental disorder within the meaning of 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 judgments.

12The mother testified to the Child’s behaviour which led to the Child’s admission to Youthdale. The Child was doing well at school with marks ranging from the low 80’s to high 90’s until February of 2012 when she was suspended for possession of marijuana. As a result of that suspension the mother took away the Child’s Grade eight graduation trip to [city]. Since then, her behaviour has deteriorated and she was late to class, did not attend detentions and defied authority. She was suspended for a second time in May of 2012.

13The mother described the Child as unpredictable, agitated, violent and oppositional. The Child has been away from home all night and spent the night in a home where a boy resides. She is sexually active and has a boyfriend from whom the mother believes she gets her drugs. The mother has been told that the Child asks for money for bus fare on the street and uses the money to buy drugs.

14During an incident on Easter weekend in April of 2012, the Child was still grounded for the first suspension. The mother decided to let her go to the YMCA with a friend. However, the Child continued to talk about a sexual relationship with the boyfriend whom the mother disapproves of. The mother decided not to let her go to the YMCA and the Child brought her fist down four times on the mother’s shoulder.

15The brother told the mother of an incident involving the Child. He was having an argument with the Child during which the Child was “standing there with a knife in her hand and a look in the eye that was intimidating”. The mother could not verify the type of knife the Child was holding since she was not present at the time. The mother believes that the brother has been intimidated by the Child. He has seen the Child’s outbursts, seen her hit the mother, call the mother names and he does not understand why she is so upset. The Child has threatened to make defamatory remarks to peers at school such that the brother does not want to go to school. The Child says things such as “I am going to school and tell everyone you are a pedophile.”

16The mother has a lock on her door because she has lost money, cigarettes and clothing. She feels safer with the door locked so that the Child cannot enter. The Child runs away and does not come back for the night. Police generally find her at her friend’s home and take her to a relative to prevent the situation from escalating with the mother. The Child has been away over night 5 or 6 times during the last 6 months. Sometimes the mother does not know where the Child is.

17The local society has an open file with the family after a complaint by the school regarding the mother’s drinking and the care of the children. The mother has considered putting the Child into care. The mother stated that the Child hit her when the mother had been drinking. The mother would get so angry and frustrated that she has called the Child, “brat, bitch, and c…”. When the mother told the Child about the appointment at Youthdale, the Child tried to run. The mother blocked her and called police. The Child hit her several times. The mother got angry, swung at the Child and chased her. This resulted in the Child being taken to a girl friend’s home for the night.

18The mother testified that on one occasion the Child threatened to kill herself. The mother stated that the Child’s intent was to try to retrieve her trip to [city] which the mother had taken away as punishment for the Child’s behavior. The mother believed that the Child was trying to manipulate her. The Child cut herself on the forearm and showed the arm to the mother shortly after. The mother described the cuts as scratches and believed it was attention-seeking behaviour. In the past six months, the mother has not witnessed the Child attempting to hurt herself.

19The Crisis Team Worker testified that within the few days of speaking to the mother prior to the Child’s admission, the Child was not actively suicidal, nor was she a substantial threat to others.

20The Board finds that there was insufficient evidence before it to conclude that the Child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act. Youthdale did not put before the Board the testimony of its admitting psychiatrist and his medical diagnosis that the Child has a mental disorder. Nor was there a medical diagnosis of any kind before the Board that the Child has a mental disorder. Further, the behavioural evidence before the Board did not establish the existence of a mental disorder.

21Youthdale relied on the testimony of the mother that the behaviour of the Child was sufficient to meet the criteria. However, the Act is specific in defining a mental disorder as a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition which grossly impairs a person’s capacity to make reasoned judgements. While the Child shows some poor judgement in her behaviour, the evidence does not indicate that her behaviour is so severe as to indicate that her capacity to make reasoned judgements is grossly impaired. Her aggression towards her mother occurs when her mother is drinking and results from conflict on both sides. Her mother has admitted to getting very angry, calling the Child names, and taking a swing at her. The mother has stated that the Child’s threat to kill herself was manipulative in nature and not a real threat. She has also said that the cuts to the Child’s arm were superficial scratches to get her attention. There were no incidents of self harm at the time leading up to admission. The Crisis Team Worker has testified that just prior to admission when she spoke to the mother, the Child was not actively suicidal nor a substantial threat to others, or she would have called the society. The Board concludes that the Child does not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act.

22The Board finds that criterion (a) was not met.

CONCLUSION

23Pursuant to section 124 (13) of the Act, the Board was not satisfied that the criterion 124 (2) (a) has been met and, therefore released the Child under section 124(13) of the Act, on June 7, 2012.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

24Parties 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.

Ruth Ann Schedlich Presiding Member

Gail Gonda Panel Member

Mary Wong Panel Member