2021 QCCQ 15254, 2021 QCCQ 15254

Protection de la jeunesse — 219055 2021 QCCQ 15254 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002712-211 DATE: October 21, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C.

Applicant and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 declare that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2010, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (e) (1) and (f) [1] of

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the child to a rehabilitation centre with a gradual reintegration under the mother’s care if the situation allows it, for a period of one year. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served the mother is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in her absence. [ 4 ] The child is 10 years old. He is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He recognizes that his security and development are endangered under sections 38 (b) (1) iii and (

f) and he agrees with the measures. Facts [ 5 ] The child was born from the union of Ms. B and Mr. C. He has been adopted by his biological paternal grandmother, Ms. A. He lives with her and with his biological father. Doing so, the latter is present daily in the life of the child. The biological mother is totally absent. [ 6 ] The DYP received a report about the child on June 15, 2021, following an accident which caused him serious injuries. He was playing in a shed with 2 friends. They were using gasoline and at one point X decided to light a container full of gasoline on fire.

This led to an explosion, and the child was burnt to third degree on 50% of his body. [ 7 ] Due to the seriousness of his injuries, he was medevaced on the same day to Town A. None of his family members was able to escort him as they were intoxicated at that time. The adoptive mother sober up and travelled the day after. [ 8 ] The child remained at the hospital from June 15, 2021, to September 1, 2021. The first 2 weeks, he had been put medically in coma and intubated.

He had a tracheostomy on June 22, because of significant airway injury and to allow better pain and clothing management. [ 9 ] After June 26, he was breathing normally, but needed sedation due to delirium, agitation and pain. The medication was adjusted during the period of hospitalization. Despite being discharged, he continues to take Risperidone for his behaviour management. [ 10 ] Until August 5, he had to be fed exclusively by a nasogastric intubation tube. After that date, even if he was able to eat by himself, this nasogastric intubation was maintained to ensure a proper nutrition.

Currently, he does not need it anymore. [ 11 ] The medical staff explained the cares that the child would need even after being discharged from the hospital:

- Skin massage 3 times a day for 1 hour each time to help stretch the skin during the healing to avoid the child to lose mobility; - Wearing compression garments and regular changes; - Paying attention to any further needs; - If the healing does not process adequately, a possibility of surgery. [ 12 ] Those needs were explained to the mother, but she was not able to demonstrate that she understands well the seriousness and the effort that it would require. [ 13 ] Another important issue occurred during the hospitalization. The child was regu-larly and intensively aggressive towards the medical staff.

The trigger of his outburst was unclear. A special white code plan was put in place by the medical team. The most important event was on August 23, 2021, when he punched a nurse in her face causing her a severe head trauma. She had to be on sick leave. His aggressiveness required a lot of intervention from the medical team and from the safety guard, but could also cause him further prejudice as it could prevent his skin from healing properly. His aggressiveness also impacted the other patients.

The mother and the biological father were present during some of those crises, but totally unable to control their son. [ 14 ] On August 25, 2021, the medical staff decided to discharge him from the hospital because it became impossible to ensure his safety and the safety of the others. The cares that he needed could be offered to him in another installation than a hospital. Doing so, he was transferred to A House in Town A, a rehabilitation centre with medical services and very high intensity of services. The same behaviours were noted there.

Despite being invited, the mother was not present during the integration of her son. Since his integration, the mother missed the majority of the organized contacts with her son and when she was present, there was not a lot of interaction between both. [ 15 ] The child displayed suicidal thoughts since his integration at A House. [ 16 ] The teachers from his previous school in Town B were reached and they confirmed that such behaviours were also present at school and numerous interventions and physical restrictions were needed.

He was suspended many times due to his behaviour, the whole despite a constant presence of a shadow. At that moment, the DYP also learned that the child did not attend school during at least 8 months during the school year 2020-2021. He probably has academic delays, but that was not assessed yet. [ 17 ] The police services were also reached and informed the DYP that the child is well known. Indeed, interventions were made for vandalism, mischief, stealing, breaking and enter and aggressive behaviours. [ 18 ] The mother does not recognize any behavioural issues.

She only explains some difficulties by the fact that the biological mother would have consumed alcohol during the pregnancy and also by the fact that he would be bullied at school. [ 19 ] The mother and the biological father display alcohol consumption issues. That prevents them to ensure the proper supervision of the child. Most of the time, the whereabouts of the child are unknown from them or they are too intoxicated to intervene in any way. [ 20 ] The DYP received different reports of physical abuse from the part of the biological father. Those reports came from different persons.

The child was met by the police, but refused to speak. The biological father always denied those facts. The father has a long history of prior with violence. [ 21 ] Despite a difficult beginning of the placement at A House, the child had been able to create bonds with one of the educators and his behaviour improved since then. The child confirms that he feel safe there and asks to remain there.

Analysis [ 22 ] The DYP initially asked the Court to declare that the security and development of the child were endangered due to neglect in terms of supervision, physical abuse he was the victim of, and serious behavioural disturbances. The child denies being a victim of physical abuse, but recognizes the other motives. [ 23 ] The evidence also supports the fact the child does not benefit from the supervision that he deserve in his family environment.

The evidence also supports the fact that the child display very serious behavioural disturbances and this for a long time. [ 24 ] Regarding the physical abuse, considering the child and the biological father always denied it and no other evidence was provided, the Court was not able to conclude that the child was a victim of such violence.

But the numerous reports received from different persons regarding always the same situation allows the Court to conclude that the child is at risk to be a victim of physical abuse according to the law. [ 25 ] The evaluation made by the DYP permitted to be informed about the fact that the child was in need of protection since a few months. The Court cannot explain why the school, once again, did not notify the DYP about the very serious events that occurred at school and about his very poor attendance.

The Court also has difficulty to understand why the police officers never communicate with the DYP before, considering the numerous interventions that were needed. Those institutions need to be reminded that the YPA impose them an obligation to collaborate with the DYP and to report any situation where the child could be potentially in danger.

After receiving the information, it will be the responsibility of the DYP to assess and to conclude if the security and the development are or are not endangered. [ 26 ] Considering the seriousness of his behavioural issues and the facts that the parents are unable to provide him with the adequate supervision and, moreover, with the appropriate medical care, the best interest of the child requires that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

[ 27 ] He is currently at A House and after being there for a few months now, we can say without any hesitation that this installation perfectly fulfill his needs on a medical aspect as well as on a behavioural rehabilitation aspect. The child was able to create bonds with one of the educators which is very positive for him. The evidence provided demonstrates that it would be prejudicial to entrust him in a different centre. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2010, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (e) (2) and (

f) of

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES that the child be gradually reintegrated under the mother’s care if the situation allows it; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child receive the health care and services required by his situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receive a psychological assessment and all recommendations be followed without any delay; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother assure the child is in the presence of responsible and sober adults; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her personal issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Date of hearing: October 21, 2021