2020 QCCQ 13561, 2020 QCCQ 13561

Protection de la jeunesse — 209356 2020 QCCQ 13561 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002527-205 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 [...] 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] 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, (

c) and (e) (1) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks to entrust the child to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She admits some of the allegations and she contests the recommended measures. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by Me Neptune. On her client’s behalf, Me Neptune submits to the Court that the situation of the child is endangered. The child would like to go back home. Facts [ 5 ] The situation of the family is known for a few years now.

Indeed, on July 30, 2017, the DYP received and retained a report regarding neglect in terms of educational needs. X was 7 years old at that time. It was reported that she suffered from inappropriate parental attitudes in the maternal environment and a poor supervision. Voluntary measures were signed three months later for a period of ten months (until November 27, 2019). [ 6 ] The current DYP worker was not working there at that time, but did read in the file that the mother’s collaboration at that time, was not perfect either. The mother had already difficulty to trust the services.

The objective of these measures was to work on the implementation of a safety net with the family members. It had not been possible to address more deeply the issues as the mother was not collaborative enough.

That being said, she was more talkative than she is now because the DYP worker present at that moment was in the community for a long time and the relation was better with this person than with the current DYP worker. [ 7 ] At that time, X had some school attendance issues, but nothing too problematic to be reported from the school. [ 8 ] On October 14, 2019, two weeks after the end of the voluntary measures, the DYP received a new report still for poor supervision, but also for physical abuse.

The conclusion of this report was made on November 3, 2020, and appeared in the evaluation report signed by Ms. [social worker 1]. [ 9 ] Questioned by the Court about the long delay before making a conclusion in this situation, the DYP worker answers that the DYP workers are overbooked and they take charge of the files according to the level of priority. Also, X always said that she was well and the DYP would like to be able to meet with the mother to obtain more precise informations.

The situation was not considered urgent at the beginning, but recently, the situation degenerated and the DYP took an immediate protective measure. [ 10 ] The DYP worker admitted that “in an ideal context, we would have intervened right away. Unfortunately the services are

overwhelmed and therefore there are choices that are made, but of course, our services do believe that the evaluation should have been done right away and the services should have been given way before.” [ 11 ] On October 19, 2020, the DYP received a report regarding physical abuse from the mother and on October 26, 2020, the DYP receive a report regarding physical abuse from Mr. B, the undeclared father. [ 12 ] As the mother was during the previous follow-up, the mother was not collaborative and was verbally and physically aggressive towards the DYP worker.

Due to this lack of collaboration, the DYP was not able to have detailed information about the situation at home and the information provides from the child and the persons around the mother. [ 13 ] On June 5, 2020, X came by herself at the police station saying that everybody at home was intoxicated. At that time, the mother told the police officer that her daughter could “manger de la marde” if she is not happy. [ 14 ] On June 21, 2020, the mother and the grandfather were intoxicated and arguing. The mother was suicidal, the grandfather was scared and called the police.

X was present at home. [ 15 ] On August 3, 2020, the mother told the DYP worker that she can take the child if she wants. On August 14, the mother was intoxicated and X was nowhere to be found. On August 19, X went to the DYP office and disclose that her mother was drinking for six days in a row. [ 16 ] On October 17, 2020, X disclosed that she had made a mess at home and because of that the mother slapped her on the face.

The DYP worker took an immediate protective measure and entrusted her to a foster family, but she immediately came back at her mother’s place and stayed there despite the fact that the mother was intoxicated. [ 17 ] The child is described as very mature and capable of referring to relatives, friends, police and DYP when she needs help. She disclosed many times not feeling safe at home and having nowhere to go. But despite the help she received from relatives and friends, she kept going back home, refused the advice she received and she changed her testimony about her problems.

The DYP worker notes that the reaction of X becomes stronger when the DYP try to impose her more structure. [ 18 ] X stayed outside very late and sometimes she ended up at the police station or at the DYP saying that she has nowhere to go. [ 19 ] On October 24, 2020, X went into a house where there is consumption. Once there she has been assaulted by Mr. B, her undeclared father, who took her by the throat and the jaw. She was able to run away to escape from him and end at the police station.

The DYP worker found her a place to stay, but she refused to go there because her friend was not entrusted to the same place. [ 20 ] The school staff said that her behaviour has always been difficult. She has a shadow at school, and she has a follow-up with Minnie’s Hope since February 2020. The mother had agreed with these services, but the situation did not improve. Indeed, the situation at school degenerated more since September 2020. [ 21 ] X was suspected having stolen a truck and putting it in fire. The DYP known about that event following the report was received, and X always denied having done that.

When she speaks about that, it is always to say that she is bullied by people who accused her of that. [ 22 ] X had generally a good safety net in her extended family and she never hesitates to reach them when she needed. But as she always goes back at her mother’s place, those people are less available to help her. Doing so, she refers more to her friends and the parents of those friends. For the same reason, those people are also discouraged. [ 23 ] On October 30, 2020, the Court was seized with a provisional measure and X was entrusted to the Group Home in Town A.

Once there, X said she lied about the difficulty at home, and that her mother never hit her. Due to the lack of collaboration from the mother and X’s changing her testimony, it is very difficult to have the real portrait of the situation. [ 24 ] The Group Home staff knows X very well because she used to come to see her friends who were entrusted there. She has good bonds with the educators and despite some crisis, she complies generally well. [ 25 ] The report mentions that “Even if she changed her testimony, that situation needs to be taken seriously and the mother refuses to give us her side of the story.

Many comments the mother made in front of our services or police officers, directed to her daughter or in front of her daughter are also worrisome and lead our services to believe that the child is also a victim of psychological ill-treatment from the mother.” [ 26 ] On November 4, 2020, a new report was received about two different events of suicidal ideation from the part of X. During that period she ran away and did not return to the Group Home. Also, she did not go to school before November 6, 2020.

The suicidal risk was not evaluated by the Social Services because they said they need the mother’s consent before making any intervention with a child, and when they call the mother, she refused to talk to them or to answer the phone. Doing so, despite the seriousness of the allegation, no professional assess nor intervene in this situation. [ 27 ] At school she became aggressive towards the other children and the teacher. Regarding the situation at school, the report mentions that: The mother’s lack of collaboration and unavailability has many consequences on the services the child can receive.

In fact, because Social Services do not have the authorization of the mother to intervene with X, they cannot address the suicidal ideation and offer her services. Moreover, the child cannot participate to the more specific programs and accompaniment offered at the Group Home and at school because no one is able to talk to the mother and obtain her permission. X would greatly benefit from that support and available activities.

[ 28 ] The mother has signed for the follow-up at Minnie’s Hope pediatric centre, but she never gave her consent for other services such as programs at the rehabilitation centre an extra support at school. [ 29 ] The mother lives with her father. She has two sisters, but one of them, who used to be a reliable care giver for X recently passed away. She also had a brother who committed suicide. The grandmother passed away a few years ago.

Since the grandmother’s death, the grandfather increased his drug and alcohol consumption. [ 30 ] The DYP worker explains that the plan is to evaluate how X react when she is in a well-structured environment before concluding that she has behavioural issues. Indeed those behavioural issues are maybe, only due to her living environment. [ 31 ] Because of the numerous running away of X from the Group Home in Town A, she was transferred to the Group Home in Town B.

Indeed, it was impossible to implement any structure with her, as she was not there. [ 32 ] A placement is a foster family is not an option for the DYP as X needs an important structure, she has important outbursts and she needs to be surrounded by people who will not give up on her. [ 33 ] The mother testifies and said, at first, that she does not want to be involved with the DYP. She finished saying that she understand that she has no choice than to collaborate to have her daughter back. Doing so, she agrees to collaborate with the DYP, and also to meet with the Social Services.

She also accepts that her daughter receive all the available services. [ 34 ] The mother admits having slapped her daughter once because she was not listening to her. She recognizes that it was not the appropriate way to intervene and she apologizes. Analysis [ 35 ] The evidence shows that X, who is only 10 years old, grew up too quick. And if she grew up so quick, it is because she had no other choice than to do.

It was because she did not benefit from the environment and the structure that a child of her age deserve. [ 36 ] For numerous reasons, the Court has no difficulty to conclude that the situation of X is endangered because of a lack of supervision and psychological ill-treatment.

By her behaviour, the mother did not demonstrate the interest she could have in the situation of her daughter and she was not able to fulfill her child’s needs for safety. [ 37 ] When a child of 10 years old is able to name that she does not feel safe at her place with her mother, the most important person in her life, it is because the situation is very serious. And because of that, she had to find a safe place to stay by herself.

It is not the responsibility of a 10-year-old child to do that. [ 38 ] The child deserves to enjoy her childhood, but X does not have childhood. [ 39 ] The situation is also endangered because of the physical abuse. The mother was honest by admitting that it happened once.

But it also happened another time by another person and it is not acceptable that X has to suffer those two which obviously could have important consequences on her development. [ 40 ] The reason why the Court was seized being established, the Court would like to underline the fact that until recently, the mother refused to collaborate, but today she presents herself at the Court and she testifies honestly. She says that she accept to receive services and to collaborate with the DYP.

Now she has to collaborate as she committed to do and to do that not to satisfy the DYP nor the Court, but because she deeply consider that she had to do that for herself and, moreover, for her daughter's well-being. [ 41 ] As mentioned, the situation of the child is serious and it is serious for a long time. And for sure, the Court cannot remain silent about the fact that the DYP did not take the file seriously for one year. As the DYP worker recognized this file would have required an immediate intervention one year ago.

It is impossible to ignore that the issues present one year ago, continued to root deeply since that time. Very intensive measures will have to be applied to ovoid the consequences of this too long delay. On this aspect, the rights of the child to receive services and her rights to be protected were wronged. [ 42 ] Regarding the withdraw of parental authority, after hearing the evidence, the DYP’s lawyer and the child’s lawyer suggested that the DYP could be authorized to consent to the medical services if the mother does not answer after a delay of 72 hours.

The Court disagrees with this suggestion, as a delay of 72 hours in certain circumstances, could be too long. As for example, if there is suicidal ideation, an immediate intervention is needed and according to the prescription of the Civil Code of Quebec , the authorization of the parents is not needed considering the seriousness of the situation. For an unknown reason, the Social Services continue to pretend that the parental authorization is needed in such situation. [ 43 ] The Court agrees with the fact that X need rehabilitation services, but disagree with a possible reintegration in a foster family.

The reintegration should be done at the mother’s place because it is the first placement and it is too early to consider that the mother’s openness to receive services will not give enough result in a few months. [ 44 ] The Court will adapt the duration of the placement to the duration of the school year. It is important that she finished her school year in Kuujjuaq, and it would be too prejudicial that she change school again during the same school year. Also, the revision will have to be done before she start the new school year.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 45 ] GRANTS the application; [ 46 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2010, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (

c) and (e) (1) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ;

[ 47 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a possibility of reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from all the programs available at the Group Home and at school that could be beneficial for her; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the child not come into contact with certain persons designated by the Court, namely Mr.

B; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school on a daily basis; [ 53 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that the child benefit from all the services that she need at school; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth protection; [ 55 ] AUTHORIZES regular contacts between the mother and the child by any technological ways; [ 56 ] AUTHORIZES contacts between the mother and the child during the Christmas time, if the Director of Youth Protection is able to organize a contact with enough guaranty that the child will be safe and to the condition that the mother agree to sign a contract of access; [ 57 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to determine the content of this contract of access and to determine all the modalities of the contact; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the child receive a psychological evaluation urgently and that all recommendations be followed without any delay, including any other evaluation that could be recommended; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the child receive all medical services that she need and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to consent to those services if the mother’s consent cannot be obtained in a timely manner according to the situation; [ 60 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 61 ] AUTHORIZES the professionals involved in the situation of the child to communicate to each other and to have access to the school and medical file of the child; [ 62 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 63 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 64 ] THE WHOLE until August 13, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

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