2020 QCCQ 12766, 2020 QCCQ 12766

Protection de la jeunesse — 209335 2020 QCCQ 12766 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001357-117 DATE: May 21, 2020 (written judgment rendered on November 16, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 [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 B, 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 extend a decision rendered on April 24, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until March 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her father and that the placement has to be prolonged.

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 present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development continue to be endangered and she agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On February 15, 2011 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and X was entrusted to a foster family.

The Court also ordered that she received medical care and a psychological assessment. [ 6 ] On March 29, 2011 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. X was 6 and half years old. The mother had been the victim of a serious accident, was unconscious and hospitalized in Town B. The father had a drinking problem and doing so, he had difficulty to fulfill the child’s need and the behavioural issues she started to display. The father agreed with the placement recommended by the DYP.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered because of neglect and entrusted X to a foster family for a period of six months with a gradual reintegration in the last two months, if the situation allows it. [ 7 ] On December 13, 2011 , the Court was seized with an application for revision and ratified a draft agreement. The mother was hospitalized in Town B for two years. She was in a deep irreversible coma following her accident. The father still had alcohol-related problems. He recognized not being able to provide and to take care of the child.

X had been entrusted to her paternal aunt, and she was doing very well there. The aunt agreed to foster X on a long term basis. The parties agreed to maintain X with her aunt for another year to see if she is well there in view of an adoption. The parties also agreed for frequent contacts between X and her father as long as the father remain sober in her presence. [ 8 ] On December 18, 2012 , the Court was seized with an application for a provisional measure. X was entrusted to a foster family, and the previous measures were maintained.

[ 9 ] On February 5, 2013 , the Court revised the situation. X was almost 10 years old. The DYP requested that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of one year, while X and her father requested that she be entrusted to her uncle. The father still recognizes his incapacity to care for his daughter for the same reason. But he is very attached to his daughter, he considers that she suffered too many traumas in her young life and it would be damageable for her to be sent outside of the community. The placement at the aunt was a failure.

The aunt left the community many times, living X alone without a home to stay. Doing so, she was entrusted to seven different foster families since the last order. Also, the aunt was frequently drunk and X was beaten. Because of the aunt’s attitude, X developed resistance to structure and she displayed this resistance also with her other caregivers.

The situation improved a lot after being entrusted to her uncle, but the school attendance remained difficult despite the good collaboration of the uncle. [ 10 ] The psychologist had diagnosed signs of poor attachment, oppositional behaviour and recommended a daily follow-up with the foster family which was never done. The Court underlined the lack of services provided in the situation and conclude that the behavioural issued displayed by X could be explained by the different losses, but also by the absence of a follow-up.

Considering X recently showed her capacity to comply, the Court considered premature to entrust her to a rehabilitation centre and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of around three months. The Court take judicial notice that the foster family would be the one of her uncle. [ 11 ] On March 22, 2013 , Dr. Beltempo psychologist, signed a psychological evaluation. The mandate given by the DYP was following the comments made by the Court in February 2013, to the facts that the recommendations made by Dr. Beltempo in 2011 was not followed.

Doing so, the DYP asked the professional to determine whether X still shows signs of oppositional behaviours. The psychologist recommended a placement in a specialized foster home and the services of a “counsellor that would implement trust building rapport before anything of significance could be opened up in her due to her high degree of past repressed emotional pain.” [ 12 ] On May 1, 2013 , the Court was seized with the revision. The DYP still requested that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, while X and her father requested a place-ment at her uncle’s place.

X continues to improve her behaviour at her uncle and even if she attends school, her behaviour in the classroom remained problematic. According to the Director of Youth Protection, this improvement is the evidence that the child and the uncle are in a period of honeymoon and X’s behaviour will degenerate as it did before. The DYP worker made weekly meetings with the uncle in person. The new worker, on her side, testifies to the fact that the uncle is unable to fulfill the child’s needs.

After mentioning that the DYP should have given more information to the father and the child, the Court followed the DYP recommendation and entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, ordered that the contacts with the parents be as frequent as possible and ordered that X benefit from a psychological follow-up. [ 13 ] On October 16, 2013 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and maintained the measures previously ordered. [ 14 ] On November 27, 2013 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. X was 10 and a half years old.

She had improved her behaviour and had spent time in potential foster family and everything went well. She was now ready to entrust a family like environment. The Court entrusted her to a foster family for a period of seven months. [ 15 ] On June 26, 2014 , the evidence shows that X remained in the same foster family since the last decision and she was doing well. The foster family’s house is located near to the father’s, and they could see each other. The father indicated having reduced his alcohol and drugs consumption, but not being able to resume his daughter’s care.

The Court entrusted the child to C and D until she reaches her majority. [ 16 ] On March 23, 2017 , the Commission des droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse issued a resolution in the following terms: CONSIDÉRANT que la Commission est d’avis que la directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du Centre de santé A ne s’est pas conformée aux recommandations des 11 juin 2015 et 20 octobre 2016; CONSIDÉRANT que X vit depuis plusieurs mois des déplacements de milieu d’accueil, brimant ainsi son droit à la stabilité, et ce, en contravention des principes inhérents à la LPJ et de l’ordonnance rendue le 26 juin 2014; CONSIDÉRANT que l’inaction de la directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du Centre de santé A contribue à l’instabilité des liens et à la discontinuité des soins auprès de X; CONSIDÉRANT que la directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du Centre de santé A n’est pas en mesure de mettre fin à la situation qui compromet la sécuri-té et le développement de X ni de consolider les services qui lui sont offerts; CONSIDÉRANT que les droits de X reconnus aux articles 2.3, 2.4, 3, 8 et 69 de la LPJ sont toujours lésés; CONSIDÉRANT que la situation de X sera présentée à la Cour du Québec, Chambre de la jeunesse, le 29 mars 2017 et qu’un projet de vie devrait être de nouveau proposé; CONSIDÉRANT qu’il est impératif que la Cour du Québec, Chambre de la jeunesse, soit instruite de l’ensemble de l’histoire de vie et des besoins de X En conséquence la Commission, CONSTATE que les droits de X sont toujours lésés; MANDATE le Direction de la protection et de la promotion des droits de la jeunesse; DE TRANSMETTRE à la Cour du Québec, Chambre de la Jeunesse la résolution CE-377.1 afin de l’informer des préoccupations de la Commission et de l’importance que la directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du Centre de santé A transmette au tribunal l’ensemble des informations concernant X et plus spécifiquement :

1. Son historique de vie; 2. Son projet de vie à planifier; 3. Des services donnés et à venir ainsi que la pérennité du suivi. RECOMMANDE que la résolution portant le numéro CE-377.1 soit remise à l’avocat de X afin qu’il puisse la transmettre à la Cour du Québec, Chambre de la Jeunesse; EST D’AVIS DE POURSUIVRE son intervention dans le présent dossier. [ 17 ] On March 29, 2017 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. The evidence revealed that X stayed at her foster family until summer 2016, at which time she ran away and refused to go back.

Despite the attempts to convince the child to be back in this foster family, she refused and doing so, the foster mother felt rejected and renounce to continue to foster X. In August 2016, a child psychiatrist recommended the service of an external educator and an individual therapy for her attachment difficulties. In November 2016, X was entrusted back to her aunt whom previously fostered her. The aunt received weekly follow-up. By living with her aunt, X was closer to her father.

The Court entrusted the adolescent to a foster family, ordered that she be assessed by a psychologist to evaluate a potential ADHD and ordered that the service of an external educator be provided, but take judicial notice that no one was available at that time, the whole until March 29, 2018. [ 18 ] On March 27, 2018 , the evidence revealed that X lived with her aunt for the last 18 months and she was doing well. The father is still unable to care for his daughter, but had very strong bonds with her and provided for her.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family, ordered that the service of an external educator be provided, the whole until March 31, 2019. [ 19 ] On March 22, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and maintained the measures previously ordered. [ 20 ] On April 24, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. A plan was made for X to live with Ms. F, but X refused without telling why. The father who started adult school agreed with the DYP’s recommendation.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family, authorized a reintegration with the father if the situation allows it, and ordered that X benefit from an individual therapy or the service of an external educator, the whole until March 31, 2020. [ 21 ] On March 26, 2020 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted X to a foster family. Facts [ 22 ] Following the last decision, X was entrusted to her cousin in Town C for one month. During a home visit in Town A she was found highly intoxicated by the police who met three different people to find a place for her to stay for the night.

Everyone refused until her brother accepted to host her. [ 23 ] On May 18, 2019, during the night, X came at the police station after being assaulted by her foster mother. She was entrusted to the Group Home for her safety. She made suicidal verbalization and was sent back to Town A at her aunt’s, Ms. G and receive a follow- up for her mood. G is the aunt who thought about adopting X in 2011. [ 24 ] Since the last order, X was reported a few times intoxicated and driving while impaired and on November 5, 2019, she was arrested for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

At the police station she displayed again suicidal verbalization and was found trying to strangle herself. [ 25 ] The day after, X disclosed not wanting to stay any longer to Ms. G without saying why. Upon X’s suggestion, she was entrusted to another aunt, Ms. H. [ 26 ] X still has difficulty with the authority and does not attend school on a regular ba-sis. When she attends, she displays a bad behaviour which prevents her from learning. [ 27 ] On December 3, 2019, a meeting took place at school to speak about X’s disruptive behaviour and lack of motivation.

The aunt, H confirmed that she spent most of her nights at her boyfriend’s place despite the aunt’s refusal. To the aunt’s opinion, this relationship is a violent one as she saw X coming back with bruises. The aunt confirmed being available to help X in such situation. [ 28 ] It was agreed that the service of an external educator would be provided and the first meeting took place on December 5, 2019. The purpose was mostly regarding the motivation at school. X did not answer to the suggestion made regarding the schooling or the option to find a job.

After that, X did not attend school anymore and the DYP planned to organize a second meeting with the external educator after the March break, but the school closed because of COVID-19. [ 29 ] Questioned about the reasons why the meetings with the external educator were not more frequent, the DYP worker explains that the external educator started working by the end of November 2019. Before that, the DYP had no external educator working for this village.

The frequency of the meetings is decided by the external educator himself and the DYP worker does not know why the external educator did not decide to have more frequent contacts. [ 30 ] In February 2020, the foster mother exposed to the DYP worker that X wanted to live in Town C and as the aunt refused, X reacted badly and does not speak anymore. Finally, X left for Town C without authorization and the aunt was very concerned for her well-being. She was found in a crowded house where there was a lot of consumption.

A safe place was found for her until she came back in Town A on March 6. [ 31 ] The situation of the father did not evolve. He has no house and sleep in a shack behind his father’s house. He does not consume alcohol, but admits an important marijuana addiction. He is not involved in X’s life.

[ 32 ] The Aunt H remains very concerned by her niece and still wants to take care of her. She is conscious about her many issues, but would like to be present to help her with. She also considers that the support from the DYP is important to help X to express herself positively. [ 33 ] To this effect, the DYP worker wrote in her report, “We believe that the youth is aware that she has a great household with Ms. H, but she has no future plans for herself.

Services are necessary in X’s situation as we believe she is acting out due to attachment issues, oppositional defiance and the abandonment history that was identified in February 2013, psychological assessment.” [ 34 ] On this topic, the Court asked to detail the services rendered to address those known issues and the DYP worker answered that she received the services of the external educator and the help of the Social Services.

The DYP candidly answered the Court that there is an important turn over in the DYP's team and that no service was provided to X during the last year. [ 35 ] According to the DYP worker, the services of the external educator will be very important to help her to develop her communication skills and to better express her feelings.

The external educator will also have to create a life plan with X including her project about schooling and job. [ 36 ] The DYP worker also plans to include in the next intervention plan that the bonds between X and her aunt are developed, with the goal for X to be more open with her aunt. [ 37 ] The Court asked the DYP worker to detail the objectives included in the current intervention plan and if those goals were reached, but the DYP worker answered that no intervention plan had been made since April 2019 (date of the last decision).

She explains that the external educator tried to prepare one, but it had not been done. Let us remind that the external educator started working in this situation in December 2019 (8 months after the last decision). [ 38 ] Considering the facts that the DYP worker does not have the answer to most of the questions asked, the Court asked her since when she was responsible for this situation and she answers being responsible since February 2020.

She ignores when the previous worker left as she was not arrived in the North at that time, and doing so, no meeting between both workers took place to make the file transfer. [ 39 ] When she took responsibility of this file, she did read that the psychological evaluation was done in 2013, but she totally ignores that X’s situation was the object of two different investigations from the CDPDJ from 2015 to 2017. She thanked the Court for having informed her about that. [ 40 ] To the opinion of the DYP, “Ms. H will be capable of offering a structured and positive environment to her niece. Moreover, we know that Ms.

H really wants to keep X in the long term, which would provide her with a safe and stable environment.” The DYP worker confirms this position at the hearing and also adds that she does not see the possibility for X to be entrusted back under her father’s care. Doing so, the DYP announce that a life plan will be proposed at the next revision for a placement at the Aunt H until X reaches her majority. Analysis [ 41 ] The situation of the adolescent remains clearly endangered as all the parties recognize. The mother recently died from Covid-19 after being a few years in a deep coma.

The father is still unable to take care of his daughter, he does not have his own house to stay and he is still struggling with addictions. That does not change the love he has for his daughter. [ 42 ] Luckily, X found a loving and caring place to stay. Her aunt is very concerned by her well-being and totally able to offer a very adequate environment for her to positively evolve. [ 43 ] Considering the position expressed by the DYP, the evidence provided and also considering the different foster family transfers in X’s life, the Court, according to sections 2.4 and 4 of YPA and also section 9

(2) c) and 10 (3) of AFNIM [1] , will order that X be entrusted specifically to her aunt, Ms. H, as foster family if she accredited as such. [ 44 ] Indeed, it is in her best interest to be entrusted specifically to this person who really care for her and it also is in her best interest to prevent any transfer. [ 45 ] Some difficulties remain in the situation of X. Those difficulties come from the numerous traumas she suffered from in the past. The Court expressed being very concerned by X’s situation (suicidal ideation, intoxication, detention for impaired driving).

The Court clearly expresses to X being scared that something wrong happened to her and reminded her that she is surrounded by very loving extended family members who are also preoccupied by her situation. [ 46 ] Her childhood was very difficult. Now she deserves to have a happy life and doing so, the Court invited her to accept the services.

The Court understands that she could be tired of having the DYP in her life, but invited her to sincerely consider the possibility to open up about her difficulties and to participate in the services. [ 47 ] Regarding the services, the evidence shows that no services were rendered during the last year. Doing so the Court has no other option than to declare that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged.

Not only a year past, but also during that time, X lost confidence in the services and has more and more difficulties to trust and to involve herself in the meetings. [ 48 ] This situation of lack of services was noted by the CDPDJ by the past following a 3-year investigation. It is very difficult to understand how it can be possible to repeat the same mistake for a third time in the same file. The CDPDJ noted the lack of service once and asked the DYP to correct the situation. The same mistake was noted a second time, and the CDPDJ notified the Court about that. And today, the Court noted the same situation.

Since 2011, how many years of services X missed? She will turn 18 soon, and she is not prepared. Her traumas are still there and as nothing has been done to help her, those traumas continued to root more and more deeply.

[ 49 ] Is it really necessary to repeat again the goal of the YPA established by

section 2.3 a)? Apparently! 2.3. Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger; [ 50 ] Also, the Court remind

section 8 YPA, and also remind the facts that the lack of workers and the turnover is not an excuse for non-rendered services. The DYP has an obligation to find a solution to be able to provide the services with the intensity required by the situation. 8.

The child and the parents are entitled to receive, with continuity and in a personalized manner, health services and social services that are appropriate from a scientific, human and social standpoint, taking into account the legislative and regulatory provisions governing the organization and operation of the institution providing those services, as well as its human, material and financial resources. The child is also entitled to receive, on the same conditions, appropriate educational services from an educational body.

Furthermore, the child and the parents are entitled to be supported and assisted by a person of their choice if they wish to obtain information or when meeting the director or any person the director authorizes. [ 51 ] The Court understands that X is tired of having the DYP in her life and that she does not see the reasons of this intervention. But as mentioned, she had been invited to open up and to accept the services because in a few months it will be more difficult for her to obtain those services.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 52 ] GRANTS the application; [ 53 ] DECLARES that the security and development of adolescent X, born on [...], 2003, are still endangered; [ 54 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to Ms. H, and if she is accredited as a foster family ORDERS that she be entrusted to her as such; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 57 ] 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; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 59 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through Social Services concerning his alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the father and the foster family; [ 62 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse and to the Commission Laurent; [ 63 ] ORDERS that a censored copy be notified to the Director of the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux A; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES [ 64 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to explain to X the importance for her to address her difficulties, the way to address it and the possible consequence on her future if she does not; [ 65 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to offer X to meet with the psychologist to have explanation about the last psychological evaluation made and if she accepts, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to organize the meetings without any delay; [ 66 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that X has access to the services recommended by the psychologist, if X accept to receive it; [ 67 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to explain to X how she will be able to have access to those services after she turns 18; [ 68 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to prepare an intervention plan; [ 69 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer;

[ 70 ] 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; [ 71 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 21, 2020