CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
D.S.
v.
Youthdale Treatment Centres
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: D.S. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres (CFSA s.124)
INTRODUCTION
1D.S., the “Child”, asked the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) to review his December 10, 2013 emergency admission to the Secure Treatment Program at the Youthdale Treatment Centre (“Youthdale”). His position was that none of the statutory criteria for emergency admission contained in subsection 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended (the “Act”) were met.
2The Board was satisfied that, at the time of admission, the Child had not met criterion (a), namely that he has a mental disorder as defined by the Act. His request for release from Youthdale was therefore granted.
BACKGROUND
3The Child is a 15 year old youth who was adopted at the age of 13 months from an orphanage outside Canada. He had problems at school and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and was placed in a special education class in grade 2. Since 2005, he received services on a sporadic basis from the, [a hospital’s] outpatient adolescent department, [a mental health agency] and the Children’s Aid Society. He was placed at the [ ] (the “Residence”) in July 2013 due to the parents’ difficulties with managing the Child’s behaviour. The Child returned home on weekends to reside with the parents. He was admitted to Youthdale on December 10, 2013 as a result of a pattern of leaving the Residence to befriend street people and using marijuana and alcohol.
ANALYSIS
4Section 124(13) of the Act provides that
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 clause 124(2) (a) to (e).
5Section 124(2) sets out the criteria all of which must be met at the time of admission.
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.
Criterion (a) the child has a mental disorder.
6The Child’s treating psychiatrist from the Residence testified to the Child’s mental disorder. She conducted a weekly group session with the Child, saw him in individual meetings and participated in his case conferences. The Child came to the Residence with diagnoses of ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome and the possibility of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (“FASD”) which was confirmed in October. The Child has difficulty with social cues, lacks the capacity for understanding emotions and has difficulty adapting to change, all of which are symptomatic of Asperger’s Syndrome. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome affects the Child’s executive functioning, impulse control, short and long term working memory, mood and irritability. He has difficulty learning from experiences and is drawn to associate with anyone who accepts him, making him a vulnerable target. He wants to trust people but is not able to judge with whom to make friends.
7The psychiatrist is of the opinion that the Child’s mental disorder affects the Child’s judgment at a moderate to severe level but his judgment is not grossly impaired. When calm, the Child has some insight into his behaviour and decision making. At times he will talk to himself and escape into fantasy, but the psychiatrist does not believe that he is out of touch with reality.
8While at the Residence, the Child left school very frequently to associate with a group of street people. He attempted to make sense of his Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and “interviewed” people on the street. The street people came to the Residence staff to inform them that the Child was associating with crack dealers and prostitutes, and smoking marijuana every day. He left for most of the day and came back to the Residence in the evening under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. The Child exhibited some tendency to self-harming behaviours. He spoke of wanting to be dead and would say, “get me a rope”. The psychiatrist was of the opinion that there was no serious suicidal ideation. The Child on occasion threatened other youth with a butter knife, but the psychiatrist did not believe he would harm anyone.
9The psychiatrist was concerned that the Child was putting himself at risk with increased exposure to street life and that he may become addicted to crack cocaine. The psychiatrist believed that a stay at Youthdale would break the Child’s cycle of compulsively going out on the street. It seemed to her that the Child was spiraling and headed for a bad incident.
10The Child’s father testified to the Child’s behaviours. The Child would leave home more frequently and for longer durations, coming home with his eyes glazed and smelling of marijuana. The Child has admitted to being intoxicated and the father has caught him with marijuana. The Child has accepted gifts from people, notably a brand new pair of running shoes. The father believed that the Child was putting himself in dangerous situations. The Child played violent video games and made shooting gestures at his father with his hands. He used very foul language directed at the father and the mother. The Child has tried to harm himself by jabbing himself using pencils, and pencil sharpeners. At times, he appeared depressed and has said that he wanted to kill himself. He has pushed his mother.
11The Board finds that Youthdale did not present sufficient evidence to show that the Child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act. The definition under the Act is:
s.112 “mental disorder” means a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition which grossly impairs a person’s capacity to make reasoned judgments.
12The evidence of the psychiatrist was that the Child’s capacity to make reasoned judgments was impaired at a moderate to severe level and not grossly impaired as required by the Act. While the Child’s behaviour of associating with street people and using alcohol and marijuana may constitute poor judgment, it is not the type of behaviour that requires a secure treatment program. Additionally, the psychiatrist has testified that the Child has no serious suicidal ideation nor is he at risk of harming others, a condition which must be met for the secure treatment program.
13The psychiatrist also testified that the Child could have been placed in the voluntary Youthdale program, which offers a very similar program to the current program, but is not a locked unit. Such a placement did not occur because there were no vacancies in the voluntary program.
14The Board finds that criterion (a) was not met.
CONCLUSION
15Pursuant to section 124(13) of the Act, the Board, not having satisfied itself that each of the criteria in subsections 124(2) (a) through (e) have been met, granted the application for release of the Child on December 14, 2013.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.
JOHN F. SPEKKENS
John F. Spekkens
Presiding Member
ALINA LAZOR
Alina Lazor
Panel Member
MARY WONG _____________________
Mary Wong
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on the 20th day of December, 2013.