2021 QCCQ 16003, 2021 QCCQ 16003

Protection de la jeunesse — 217766 2021 QCCQ 16003 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N o : 455-41-000932-152 DATE: August 26, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : HONORABLE CATHERINE BROUSSEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD : X Born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at [...] Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- B Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to review the order rendered on September 22, 2020 by Judge Pascale Berardino, which declared the safety and development of X (12 years old) in danger of a serious risk of neglect (mother’s mental health issue), physical neglect and educational neglect. [ 2 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the child to a foster family and authorized, in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with her mother by a third party designated by the Director, according to the modalities set by the Director, for a minimum of three hours per month.

The Court also ordered accessory measures and a social follow-up for a period of one (1) year. [ 3 ] Today, the Director asks the Court to declare the safety and development of X still compromised for the same motives and recommends the Court : - To entrust the child to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre until an adequate foster family can be found that will properly suit the child’s needs and behaviours; - To entrust, after a progressive integration, the child to a foster family, or a foster family of proximity; - To authorize parent-child contacts, upon modalities and frequency determined by the Director; - To order that the contacts be supervised by a third party determined by the Director; - And other measures and a psychosocial follow-up for a period of one (1) year.

[ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented by a lawyer. [ 5 ] The mother is present and s he agrees with the grounds of endangerment and with the measures sought. Nonetheless, the mother wants her daughter to be able to integrate an English-speaking rehabilitation center since she has always had some difficulties in French. [ 6 ] As for the child, she also consents to the measures sought. She mentions having spent a few days with the kinship foster family of C and everything went well. These people are fluent in English and X feels good with them.

She also says she wants to see her mother more often as well as her two sisters and the unborn baby. [ 7 ] In view of the consent of all parties, the Court granted the request of the Director. Here are the reasons for this decision. REVIEW SINCE THE LAST ORDER [ 8 ] In the summer of 2020, the Director began the integration of the child into the foster family of Mrs. D and Mr. E. On September 2, 2020, the integration of X is completed. Initially, the child actively participates in the tasks, but soon she showed signs of opposition. In addition, X committed certain thefts.

The foster family also found that X showed reactions after the phone calls with her mother. [ 9 ] Later on, on October 6, 2020, the Director announced to X that she would not be able to return to her mother's home given the Tribunal's order. Mother and daughter were emotional. The mother explained to X that she will continue to fight for her. [ 10 ] In the winter of 2021, X's opposition and provocative behaviour increased. The Director therefore applied a greater intensity of services to help the foster family until an educator was available.

Thus, the worker was present in the foster family once a week. [ 11 ] On February 9, 2021, the educator began his follow-up. He quickly realized that X has attachment problems given all the changes she has experienced during her life. [ 12 ] On March 11, 2021, the foster family signified that they were unable to meet the child’s needs. The Director therefore made the decision to move the child to an environment where there will be fewer children so that the targeted foster family can devote themselves entirely to X. Thus, the child was directed to the foster family of Mrs. F and Mr.

G. [ 13 ] Once again, the first month in this new foster family was positive. However, X again showed signs of opposition. On June 9, 2021, she had to be urgently transferred to the care of her teacher, H. [ 14 ] On June 22, 2021, the Court ordered compulsory measures and entrusted the child to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre.

ANALYSIS [ 15 ] The mother has seven children, all of whom are being monitored by the Director for the same reasons as those raised in the present case. [ 16 ] In addition, the mother is currently pregnant and is expected to give birth around mid-September 2021. [ 17 ] This has an impact on X since due to her mother's health problems related to her pregnancy, several visits had to be canceled. [ 18 ] Apart from the cancellations, mother and child visits are positive. Only one visit proved to be more difficult, that of December 1, 2020.

During this visit, the mother wanted to give X a cane that had belonged to a significant member of the family who died. However, the foster family refused to let the child bring the object home. The mother was then in all her states. Two case workers had to negotiate with her so that she would leave and calm down. [ 19 ] Unfortunately, on several occasions it is noted that after the visits, the child has negative behaviors.

In this regard, despite the mother's explanations, the child is still afraid that "mommy is going to die". [ 20 ] On a personal level, X suffers from opposition disorder, attachment disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity. She does not have many resources around her, apart from her brother to whom she is very close and who is currently entrusted to a foster family until he comes of age. [ 21 ] At school, X works well.

She respects the teachers and the regulations. [ 22 ] In the last few years, X has experienced a lot of instability. [ 23 ] Therefore, everyone agreed that the goal is for X to be able to join a foster family where she can have her roots. [ 24 ] However, as the case worker pointed out, even if Ms. C's foster family seemed adequate to receive the child, the Director remained convinced that a minimum of four or five months would be necessary to ensure that this integration was a success.

In the meantime, the Director explained that the child was on the waiting list for an English-speaking rehabilitation centre as requested by the mother. [ 25 ] In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the Director's request is in the needs and best interests of the child. [ 26 ] The mother's situation has not changed enough to allow her to take back her daughter and the child still has a lot of work to do to resolve her attachment and opposition difficulties. [ 27 ] Therefore, a neutral and less emotionally engaging environment will allow her to recover from her many changes of environment

and to integrate an environment where she can establish herself.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger for the following reasons: - Serious risk of neglect (mother’s mental health issue); - Physical neglect (hygiene needs not met in the mother’s environment); - Educational neglect (inappropriate parental attitude in the mother’s environment); [ 30 ] REVISES the court order rendered on September 22, 2020, in the present file; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the child to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, until an adequate foster family can be found that will properly suit the child’s needs and behaviours; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS , after a progressive integration, the child to a foster family, or a kinship foster family; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES parent-child contacts, upon modalities and frequency determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts be supervised by a third party determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection of any change in her situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child’s parent take an active and honest

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal, to the elaboration of the intervention plan and to the psychosocial follow-up, in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family, for a period of one (1) year ; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ CATHERINE BROUSSEAU, J.C.Q.

M e Émilie Gélineau Counsel for the DYP M e Claudel Vachon Represented by M e Caroline Gagné Counsel for the youth Deposited exhibits: D-24 Date of written judgment: November 8, 2021