2019 QCCQ 19496, 2019 QCCQ 19496

Protection de la jeunesse — 197911 2019 QCCQ 19496 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 35179-191 Date: May 23, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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.). [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 23, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , an eleven year-old child, based on the neglect and serious risk of sexual abuse to which she is exposed as well as on her serious behavioural disturbances. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated March 15, 2019 are as follows: 3.1. the mother is not implicated in the child’s life; 3.2. the child runs a serious risk of being subjected to gestures of a sexual nature by another person and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child confirmed sending pictures of her genitals on Facebook on numerous occasions;

b) the child also stated receiving pictures of genitals from other people on social media;

c) the child has been looking at pornography through the internet on a regular basis;

d) the father deleted the child’s social media accounts, but she still finds ways to access her accounts;

e) the first week of March 2019, the child had planned to meet a man she met on social media in the metro, but was stopped by the father and the step-mother; 3.3. the child has serious behavioural disturbances, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) she uses verbal and physical aggression towards adults and peers;

b) she steals;

c) she ran away on several occasions;

d) the child’s behaviours are difficult to manage, both at home and at school;

e) in February 2019, the child arrived at school with a phone and would not say where she got it when confronted;

f) the father and the step-mother are overwhelmed by the child’s behaviours; 3.4. the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs in failing to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support, or failing to take the necessary steps to provide the child with schooling, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child was left alone at the family home on several occasions and was able to run away;

b) from March 4 until March 8, 2019, the child has run away from the family home on three occasions;

c) the father blames the child for her behaviours and believes she is acting out on purpose (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The child’s mother’s whereabouts remain unknown and the Court proceeded in her absence. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Stah, admitted all the alleged facts with the exception of paragraph 3.4

c) and denied blaming the child in any way. He also added that the child was left alone at home only once. He consented to all the proposed measures but opposed ongoing social follow-up beyond the end of December 2019. [ 7 ] The child, assisted by Me Tremblay, also admitted the alleged facts, with the same explanations and reservations as her father, and consented to all the measures as recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Psychological Assessment of the child, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated May 9, 2019 and Curriculum Vitae, en liasse (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-3: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated May 14, 2019; D-4: Report Card from school year 2018-2019; D-5: Police Report bearing event no. [...] (filed under

Article 292 C.p.c.); D-6: Addendum to Psychological Assessment of the child, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated May 6, 2019 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-7: Minutes of the Superior Court dated May 18, 2010. [ 9 ] In

summary, the facts alleged in support of the application are admitted and the child’s need for the structure and services in placement is also recognized.

The only issue in dispute is the appropriate duration of the social follow-up after the child’s return to her father’s care beginning in mid-July, as agreed upon by the parties. [ 10 ] Although the father’s stated desire is to collaborate fully, he believes that a court order until the end of December 2019 is sufficient to redress the situation. [ 11 ] However, the Director of Youth Protection alleges that a full year is necessary given the chronicity and gravity of the child’s difficulties. [ 12 ] The child’s very recent psychological assessment concludes that “she shows limited insight into her behavior and does not seem to have learned from the mistakes that she has made” [2] . [ 13 ] Moreover, “Her attachment to her father seems faulty” [3] . [ 14 ] The child was also diagnosed with a Mild Intellectual Disability as well as ADHD: Taken together, X meets DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Mild Intellectual Disability .

These impairments will impede upon her ability to learn and develop new skills in the future and she will require support throughout her lifespan. Likewise, she meets the diagnostic criteria for ADHD-Inattentive Presentation . [4] [ 15 ] Based on the results of her assessment, the following recommendations are made as it appears in the Addendum to the report dated May 9, 2019: ➢ X will continue to require support in order to prepare for a successful transition to high school.

It is suggested that she be referred to her local CLSC-DI-TED who can provide her with support now, and in the future. ➢ X’s caregivers are entitled to financial support from the provincial and federal governments. It is suggested that the required paperwork be completed in order to provide the family with this assistance.

➢ X would benefit from age-appropriate social skills training; ➢ It is suggested that X’s parents apply for an exemption which would allow her to attend school in English. Whereas she would continue to experience difficulty meeting the academic demands in and English School, it is likely that she would less frustrated which may limit her behavioral challenges. ➢ It is important that X’s attentional and behavioral difficulties be interpreted within the context of her intellectual disability. It is likely that her lack of insight and impulsivity are exacerbated by her concrete thinking and lack of insight.

Regardless, she may benefit from the use of a stimulant medication, which may improve her time on task and limit her impulsivity.

It is therefore suggested that this report be shared with her pediatrician [5] (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 16 ] The recommendations are very recent and the father’s expectation that all the necessary adjustments will be made within the year, appears unrealistic. [ 17 ] The duration of the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection reflects the extent of the work that remains to be done, both for the child to gain greater insight into and control over her behavior, as well as for the family to better understand how best to guide and support her. [ 18 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that the measures as recommended, including the duration of the social follow-up for one year, are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) (iii), 38 (d) (2) and 38 (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of four months, with an integration to her father’s care beginning in mid-July as agreed upon by the parties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by agreement between the Director of Youth Protection and the father taking into account the child’s best interest; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with the professionals working with the child; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from all health care services required by her situation, more particularly that she benefit from all services recommended in her psychological assessment as it appears from Exhibit D-6 at page 5, more particularly that she be referred to her local CLSC DI-TED to provide her with support given her recent diagnosis; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from age appropriate social skills training; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that steps have already been taken to allow her to attend school in English; [ 27 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that she be granted eligibility to attend school in English; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that she be followed and that any medication required by her ADHD be monitored and adjusted on a timely basis, as recommended by her doctor; [ 29 ] ORDERS that she be seen by a pediatrician to address her ADHD diagnosis as soon as possible; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a regular basis or that equivalent services be provided to her as soon as possible; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the father be offered the opportunity to meet with the author the child’s psychological assessment, as soon as possible, so that its content and conclusions can be explained to him in detail; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on June 21, 2019

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sandra Tremblay Attorney for the child Me Lilian Stah Attorney for the father TD/vl