2020 QCCQ 12767, 2020 QCCQ 12767

Protection de la jeunesse — 209336 2020 QCCQ 12767 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001869-145 DATE: November 25, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 18, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on May 26, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family, namely Mr. C and Ms.

D, until April 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that youth should be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, until April 30, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The father is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes, by the voice of her lawyer, that her security and development are still in danger and she agrees with the measures.

History of the situation [ 5 ] On November 28, 2014 , the Court entrusted X and her siblings to a foster family considering her parents’ alcohol consumption issues. [ 6 ] On December 17, 2014 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 7 years old. The parents admitted their alcohol issues, but they were proud to say that they quit one month before. The mother was determined to attend Portage. The parents lived together for 28 years. They had five biological children and three adopted. X was one of the adopted children.

Their alcohol issues were quite recent, and their extended family was very helpful. The DYP intervened in their life in 2014, after the mother attempted three times to her life. The parents realized the seriousness of their situation. The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family until June 19, 2015, with a possible reintegration after the mother would have attended Portage. [ 7 ] On June 18, 2015 , the Court did not proceed on the revision, as the family house burnt the day before and the mother died in the fire.

The placement was maintained. [ 8 ] On September 17, 2015 , the evidence revealed that the father was living at one of his oldest daughter, Y. He worked hard to provide for his family, but he still displayed alcohol consumption issues. The Court entrusted X to a foster family until May 25, 2016. [ 9 ] On May 24, 2016 , the Court noted that the father still had alcohol consumption issues. The father exercised regular contacts

with X and her siblings, but he did not res-pect the calendar made by the DYP. He was open to follow the recommendations and to seek help. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until December 23, 2016. [ 10 ] On December 19, 2016 , the Court maintained he placement under provisional measures. [ 11 ] On January 25, 2017 , the father’s issues are still present. He exercised some accesses being intoxicated and he was not able to feed his children during those visits. The father did not provide winter clothes to them. X and her siblings were entrusted to their older sister and everything went well.

The father planned to attend Town A Treatment Center. X displayed violent tantrums. The foster mother (sister) was pregnant and could have difficulty to deal with her new born and her three foster children with very particular needs. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family, taking judicial notice that the foster family would be E, until January 25, 2018. [ 12 ] On February 2, 2018 , the placement was maintained on provisional measures. [ 13 ] On February 21, 2018 , the father said he was able to reduce his alcohol con-sumption. X was at her sister place since June 2017.

Despite the information to the fact that there was alcohol consumption in the house, X is doing well. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until February 28, 2019, and ordered that a life plan be prepared. [ 14 ] On February 27, 2019 , the placement was prolonged under provisional measures. [ 15 ] On May 17, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. The father still had alcohol consumption issues. X was entrusted to a foster family in another community with her siblings, but the three children disclosed not being well in their foster home.

The father insisted a lot for them to be entrusted back in Town A and X said the same thing, but would also accept to remain in her foster family. X had behavioural issues. She suffered from many traumas, and she was recently sexually abused. X was entrusted to a new foster family still in Town B. The Court prolonged the placement and ordered extended contacts with the father and the family in Town A. The Court also ordered that she receive support for her emotional distress, including sexual abuse and the loss of her mother.

The Court ordered a psychological evaluation and a follow-up if needed, the whole until May 31, 2020. [ 16 ] On December 31, 2019 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological evaluation of X. He concluded as follows: X showed signs of long-standing trauma […] The best description to characterize X would be a pre-adolescent who is repressed, inhibited, with mixed up feelings about much that is really going on inside her inner self. […] What has helped her to cope in the past was to go to school, to keep busy with friends and have telephone contact with her old sister, Z.

X would like to FaceTime her sister to make it more real. I strongly suggest that we support this request. [Social worker 1] is the interpreter but also a Community Worker and a great source of trusted support for her. X would like to continue to see [social worker 1] and trusts that she will be there for her, in contrast to the Social Workers who “seem to come and go”. [ 17 ] Dr.

Beltempo recommended specifically: • It would be very beneficial for X to have increased visits along with FaceTime contact with her older sister, Z, in Town A. • I would highly recommend [social worker 2], the Community Worker , who is the most consistent and most trusted person to be able to work with her on the issues of grief counselling , similar to what happened in today’s session. [social worker 1] appreciated the fact that X was able to finally let go her sadness and sorrow. • We strongly suggest that [social worker 1], as a community worker , under the supervision of a Social Worker, continues this counselling and to focus on the abandonment, loss of her grandmother and grief of being abandoned by her mother. • We also recommend that counselling sessions be held between Foster Mother and X to improve communication and to clarify problematic expectations as they emerge.

X has outstanding attachment sequelae which may surface in the form of acting-out (self-undermining behaviors) when she cannot or will not express her internal needs. It would be important that the counselling sessions explore in a non-judgmental way, her true underlying feelings and needs. • Lastly, I recommend regular visits with her sister (

Z) rather than haphazard visits have occurred lately. If X knows that she is regularly going to visit her sister, she will probably be able to adjust more adequately. [ 18 ] On May 26, 2020 , the evidence showed that the father continued to have alcohol consumption issues, but was able to reduce his consumption. The contacts between the child and the father were positive. Some allegations, about sexual abuse of a minor child by the father, were raised. The father denied it, but understood that he could not be alone with the child. X was entrusted to C and D, and she was doing well there.

She had no more behavioural issues. The Court entrusted her specifically to this foster family until April 30, 2021, ordered that the child and the father receive the services of an external educator for as long as deemed necessary and ordered that the contacts with the extended family continue to be regular. [ 19 ] On October 8, 2020 , the child was entrusted to a foster family under provisional measures. Facts [ 20 ] The revision report mentions that the actual follow-up is done under

section 38 (b) (1) iii and 38 (b) (2) which were the grounds of endangerment declared by the Court. The report mentions that the follow-up is also done under

section 38 (d) (2) since December 2014. This grounds had never been declared by the Court and the allegations of sexual abuse, for which the situation of X could have been declared endangered for a risk of sexual abuse, were revealed at the hearing held in May 2020. The Court has no more evidence on this aspect, understands that the father agree to be supervised during his contacts with X and her siblings and that the extended family members are well aware of this situation and keep an eye on the children.

[ 21 ] The same report dated on September 21, 2020, describes X as a very social girl and who responds well to the adult authority. She is also doing very well at school. Between the last order and September 21, she was met only twice by the DYP worker. [ 22 ] On August 11, 2020, while X was in Town A for a home visit, the father informed the DYP worker that she would have been assaulted by the foster mother, Ms. D. The DYP worker met with X who did not disclose anything nor said that she was not living anymore to Ms. D. At the end of the home visit, X went back to Town A at the end of August.

On September 9, the DYP worker in Town B informed his colleague from Town A that X was not living anymore at Ms. D’s place and was now living at Ms. H’s place. [ 23 ] The DYP worker in Town B is aware since July that X was not in her foster family anymore because the foster department does not make any payment since that date to Mr. and Ms. D They did not inform the DYP of Town A they knew that and the DYP wor-ker in Town A did not ask any question, so is unable to answer the Court’s questions. [ 24 ] As mentioned in the report, X's sister is entrusted to Ms. H.

No question neither were asked by the DYP worker of Town A to the DYP worker of Town B who follows X’s sister to know why they were not made aware that X was living at Ms. H’s place. [ 25 ] The D’s family was called on September 9 and they confirmed that X was not at their place anymore since the end of July 2020, and they ignore the reason why X left, but they respect her choice and they do not want her to be back under their care. [ 26 ] The same day, Ms. H confirmed that she was taking care of X and that X was doing very well. X never told her why she decided not to stay anymore with the D’s family. Ms.

H is a teacher at school in Town B. [ 27 ] On September 17, X accepted to open up about the reason why she left. She said that she was scared to be hurt because she was hurt in the past, she had been slapped, kicked and punched when she did something wrong. [ 28 ] The father is still living in Town A. He is working for the housing in the community on a daily basis. He is always collaborative with the DYP worker. [ 29 ] The father is always happy to have home visits with his children mostly during the school vacation.

He was informed that he has rights to do activities with his children such as camping but he cannot be alone with his daughter because of the accusations of sexual abuse on a minor.

The father understands well and his older daughter commit herself to be present all the time and to foster X and the other children when they will come in Town A. [ 30 ] The father still struggles with alcohol addictions issues, but the DYP has nothing to report regarding any violent event or any criminal offences committed by the father while being intoxicated. [ 31 ] The report mentions that the main goal of the current placement is to find a life plan for the youth as she has been through many foster families. The DYP considers that it is too early to recommend that X be entrusted now to Ms.

H, but confirms that Ms. H is strongly considering for the future life plan that will have to be proposed. Analysis [ 32 ] The situation of X remains endangered, and the intervention of the DYP is still necessary. [ 33 ] Obviously, X is doing well in her actual foster family. It is not the first time that X is entrusted under Ms. H’s care. Indeed, X was there before, but Ms. H gave up because of X’s behavioural issues. [ 34 ] X decided to leave the foster family where she was, and it is not the first time she does that. The Court questions this fact which could reveal attachment issues.

X is maybe scared to root somewhere and this aspect will have to be investigated more in the preparation of the life plan, to be sure that the next placement will be a success this time. [ 35 ] The Court is also concerned by the facts that no one considered necessary to investigate more with the DYP workers in Town B about the reasons why the worker in Town A was not made aware immediately when X left. The situation was entrusted to the DYP. The child is in foster care for many years and when a child is not anymore in a foster family, more over identified by the Court, the first person to be aware of is the DYP.

It is unacceptable that a parent has to inform the DYP about that. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the application; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are still endangered; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 39 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that X is actually entrusted to Ms. H and that the Di-rector of Youth Protection consider that Ms. H is an option for a life plan to be prepared; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, the father and the extended family members be determined by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 44 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from home visits at least during each school vacation; [ 45 ] AUTHORIZES frequent and regular contacts between the child and the father by phone or by any other technological ways; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 25, 2020