2012 QCCQ 17519, 2012 QCCQ 17519

Protection de la jeunesse — 126951 2012 QCCQ 17519 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000333-121 DATE: December 17, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner and X Child and B and C Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for protection purpose in respect of X (2005-[…]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 38 of the Youth protection act. [ 2 ] The parties agree that the petition is heard jointly with the one of his brothers. [ 3 ] The petition is based on the following assertions and facts :

a) On September 7, 2012, a police intervention at the domicile of the family has led to the placement of the children under Immediate Protective Measures;

b) During the intervention, a member of the family has fled with the children;

c) The domicile of the family is in a complete state of inadequacity to fulfill the basic needs of the children:

1) There is no running water; 2) There is no electricity; 3) There is no sanitary facility; 4) It is unsanitary and unhealthy;

d) The children do not have proper clothes;

e) The clothes they have are not washed other than in the river;

f) The hygiene of the children is so poor that : 1) The car seats of the petitioner had to be covered for the purpose of their transportation; 2) They had to be bathed more than once in order to bring then to an acceptable level; 3) Their clothes had to be washed up to 6 times;

g) The children have never attended school;

h) The educational level of the children is far from being sufficient for their age;

i) The children lack of social skills to the point that they barely interact with children outside of their immediate family;

j) X suffers from an important developmental problem related to autism;

k) During the intervention, X was so disorganized, he had to be transported and placed in the hospital in order to receive proper care;

l) The parents are in the process of getting proper home for their children, yet to be evaluated;

m) The parents offer good cooperation to the petitioner. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the parents are present with their lawyer. They deny or ignore most of the allegations of the petition; however, they accept the recommendations of the Director of youth protection except the one concerning the schooling aspect.

They want to regularize their situation and to obtain a legal authorization for homeschooling. [ 5 ] The child's lawyer wants that everything possible be put in place rapidly so that Z and X be integrated in an approved academic program compatible with their level which has to be promptly evaluated, especially the special needs for X. For Y, he must be given the chance to socialize thru dedicated programs and activities, including kindergarten. [ 6 ] The Court studied the petitioner's psychosocial report, the letter of the school principal and pictures of the household when the

children were apprehended by the Director of youth protection representatives and police; the Court also examined reports of a pediatrician , an evaluation of the child made on July 29, 2011 by le Centre A and a police report regarding the intervention of September 7, 2012. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mrs. [social Worker 1], the petitioner, as well as the testimony of the mother, Mrs. B. [ 8 ] Mrs. [social worker 1] says that Z and X shall integrate a regular school if the parents can not obtain an authorization for homeschooling and that X's special needs shall be assessed.

Also, it is to be seen what the school system has to offer to X. [ 9 ] For Y, as there is no legal obligation at this time to integrate the school due to his age, she recommends nevertheless that his socialization be addressed thru kindergarten or other similar program. [ 10 ] She does not know the results of any procedures made by the mother for homeschooling permission.

The parents could not provide her any official authorization. [ 11 ] The parents are collaborating in the process of children's registration at school and to have their academical level evaluated. [ 12 ] She does not think that it is relevant and feasible to send Z and X right away at school as they never been to school. [ 13 ] An integration plan must be prepared. Y tends to develop the same speech problem then his siblings; that is why he must be integrated in a stimulated environment as soon as possible. [ 14 ] Mrs. B testifies that she registered the children on September 30 th . She is working with Mrs.

D, the person at school who deals with special needs for students. [ 15 ] She has filled an application for assessment of Z and X. Due to his age, they will not assess Y. [ 16 ] She is waiting for Mrs.

D's call. [ 17 ] She enumerates different activities in which she intends to enrol Y to improve his social skills. [ 18 ] As for X, he is very limited (two years mental age). [ 19 ] She affirms that she homeschools since nine years. [ 20 ] In May 2012, the Director of youth protection investigated the situation and the file was closed. [ 21 ] Nine years ago, while living in another part of the province, she had removed another son (

A) from school at the request of the school and a social worker.

They said to her that it was fine to teach him at home and she was never otherwise authorized. [ 22 ] Being asked what she would do if she does not get an authorization, she does not directly answer but only says she will get this authorization. [ 23 ] From the whole evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the Court concludes that the security and development of the children are in danger. [ 24 ] Indeed, when the Director of youth protection and the police force intervened in September 2012, the family was living in a small trailer situated in a remote area in the back roads of City A.

The family household is described as in a complete state of inadequacy. The hygiene of all the family members, especially the children, was a real concern. [ 25 ] Pictures filed in evidence are self-revealing. [ 26 ] Moreover, the children never attended school and the parents can not provide formal and legal authorization to homeschool them. [ 27 ] It is true that the situation had been previously evaluated and closed by the Director of youth protection in April 2012.

It is because the family was referred to the regular social services for a continuity of professional care as they were collaborating. [ 28 ] The children and their family seem to be socially isolated. [ 29 ] Since the intervention of September 7 th , the family moved in a more acceptable environment in City B. The parents are preparing their new home in New Carlisle and are collaborating with the Director of youth protection.

That is the reason why the children were returned by the Court to their parents on a provisory basis waiting for this hearing. [ 30 ] Concerning X, he is not affected by autism as mentioned in the petition. In fact, he was a premature baby suffering from intracerebral haemorrhage and deafness. He had many other problems and was operated many times.

He presents a severe delay and needs very special and specific attention on a daily basis. [ 31 ] Before intervening on the schooling aspect, the Court prefers to let the parents make the necessary steps to regularize the situation within an acceptable delay. [ 32 ] The Director of youth protection shall help the parents into this aspect and inquire at the school board on what was done and what is to be expected.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X is considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 34 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to his parents, Mrs. B and Mr.

C; [ 35 ] ORDERS that X receives all the services required by his medical health situation and that the recommendations be followed by the parents; [ 36 ] ORDERS that X and his parents receive family services through an external educator; [ 37 ] ORDERS to the parents to collaborate actively with the school authorities and the Director of youth protection in order that the child receives proper education within the shortest delays in accordance with all legal prescriptions, prerequisites and modalities and RECOMMENDS to the parents to be proactive, to attend all appointments and to make and answer all the phone calls necessary to achieve this goal; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that X be rapidly evaluated regarding his schooling level and that his special needs be assessed; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS to the parents that they take the necessary measures so that the children be given the chance to integrate adapted programs to help them socialize and develop their social skills and, especially for Y, to strongly consider kindergarten; [ 40 ] ORDERS to the parents to report periodically to the Director of youth protection on the measures they apply in their own regard and in their children's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are in danger. [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in all the measures suggested by the Director of youth protection in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of youth protection of any new address or changes in their situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his family ; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until November 30, 2013, for the carrying out of the present measures.

__________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux, for the petitioner Me Florence Frappier-Routhier, for the child Me Bruno-Gabriel Vargas, for the parents