H.C. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2014 CFSRB 51

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

H.C.

v.

Youthdale Treatment Centres

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: September 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 51

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

INTRODUCTION

1H. C., the “Child”, asks the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) to review her August 29, 2014 emergency admission to the Secure Treatment Program at the Youthdale Treatment Centre (“Youthdale”). Her position is that criteria (a), (b) and (e) 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 not met.

2The Board was not satisfied that criterion (a) as set out in s. 124(2) was met at the time of the Child’s admission to Youthdale and granted her application for release on September 5, 2014. The Board’s reasons address criterion (a) that the Child had a mental disorder but do not address criteria (b) and (e) as these criteria can only be met if there is a finding that criterion (a) was met at the time of the emergency admission.

BACKGROUND

3The Child is a 14 year old girl who is a crown ward of the [ ] (the “Society”). She was apprehended at the age of 2 months by the Society and subsequently placed in a kinship placement with her aunt and uncle. This placement broke down several years ago and the Child has been placed in numerous foster homes and group homes. The Child was admitted to Youthdale because of behavioural issues.

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).

Section 124(2) sets out the criteria 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.

Section 112 of the Act defines mental disorder:

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.

Criterion (a) the child has a mental disorder.

5The Admitting Psychiatrist is of the opinion that the Child displayed disturbances of emotion and thinking as reflected in the Child’s intoxication, prostitution and vandalism. She believes that the Child is emotionally dis-regulated and that there is “something going on with her mood”. At the time of admission, the Child was not co-operative and the Admitting Psychiatrist had limited information.

6In the admission Summary, the Admitting Psychiatrist noted the Child’s high risk behaviours consisting of numerous occasions of “awoling“ from her placements, unprotected sex with older peers and men, involvement with alcohol and alleged possession of a substance. She also noted concerns that the Child was involved in a prostitution ring. In the Mental Status Examination at Time of Admission, the Admitting Psychiatrist noted that the Child denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation or psychotic symptoms or any fears of phobias. The Admitting Psychiatrist concluded that the Child’s judgment was poor and that based on her history, her insight was minimal. The Admitting Psychiatrist did not give a diagnosis of the Child’s mental disorder or her opinion of what mental disorder the Child might have at the time of admission. She recounted a history of the Child’s behaviour and some past diagnoses. Her plan for the Child was to admit her to the acute unit at Youthdale for assessment, stabilizing, and placement planning. She hoped to get blood work and STI testing done as well as a sleep study.

7The Admitting Psychiatrist stated that she could not assess the Child’s level of risk for serious bodily harm. She considered that the Child had cut her arm but did not require any medical treatment. She noted that the Child put herself at risk by engaging in unprotected sex and not following through with testing for sexual diseases. She was also concerned because the Child did not attend medical appointments.

8The Supervisor of Children’s Services testified to the Child’s behaviour on behalf of the child’s worker who was not available. The Supervisor stated that the Child was living in a specialized foster home from April 2 to August 4, 2014 when she allegedly organized a prostitution ring and used social media sites for the purposes of solicitation. The Child had a sexual encounter with a 22 year old male when she ran away in May 2014. The Child had no interest in taking birth control, has refused medical treatment after being sexually active and has expressed concerns of sexually transmitted diseases and of becoming pregnant. In June 2014, a white powder suspected to be cocaine was found in the Child’s room. The Child spoke of drinking and smoking cigarettes when she ran away.

9The foster home terminated the Child’s placement based on her behaviour of constantly running away and getting her peers involved. The Child was then moved back and forth between several residential homes from which she constantly ran away. On August 21, 2014, the Child ran away from her residential home placement, was placed in another home and then ran away again for several days until she was found on August 24, 2014.

10The Supervisor stated that the Child has a history of suicidal risk but within the last 6 months, it has not been an issue.

11The Board considered the evidence of the Admitting Psychiatrist who based her opinion on limited knowledge since the Child was not co-operative. She admitted the Child based on information which she gleaned from the crisis team and a Society worker who was filling in for the Child’s regular worker. The Admitting Psychiatrist did not give a diagnoses or opinion on the Child’s mental disorder nor could she explain to the panel the link between the Child’s behaviour and a disorder of emotion, thought or cognition as required by the Act.

12Based on the evidence before it, the Board concluded that the Child does not have a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought or cognition which grossly impairs her capacity to make reasoned judgments. While the Child clearly shows poor judgment as reflected in the above described behaviours, the Board found no evidence of gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

13The Board finds that criterion (a) was not met.

CONCLUSION

14Pursuant to section 124(13) of the Act, the Board satisfied itself that all five criteria in subsections 124(2) were not met and ordered the release of the Child on September 5, 2014.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

15Pursuant 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.