2020 QCCQ 12759, 2020 QCCQ 12759

Protection de la jeunesse — 209328 2020 QCCQ 12759 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-001039-202 DATE: August 4, 2020 (written judgment rendered on November 16, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2005 [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, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) ii, (b) (2) and (

c) of

section 38 [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre or a Group Home with a reintegration at home if the situation allows it, until August 31, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun. She denies the alleged situation of endangerment and if the Court concludes to endangerment, she contests the measures and wants her son under her care. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Grey and Me Dahan (August 7, 2020).

He expresses the position as the mother. [ 5 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Sinnett. X does not take position regarding to the compromising, but he contests the measures and asks to be back under his mother’s care. [ 6 ] X has a brother, Y, who is 11 years old. The Court is also seized with his situation. Facts [ 7 ] The family is known from the DYP services as the oldest children were followed until 2018, for serious behavioural disturbances.

Two reports were received (November 2016 and April 2018) regarding X and his younger brother, but no follow-ups were offered as the DYP did not conclude that the situation was endangered. [ 8 ] The parents are in relationship for 20 years and have a long history of alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. [ 9 ] On May 1, 2020, a new report was received. The Social Services and medical files of X and his brother were consulted and it revealed the following facts. [ 10 ] In 2015, X had an episode of depression because of bullying and social anxiety. He received a prescription of Prozac.

He also had a history of physical abuse, post-traumatic syndrome disorder and a follow-up with a child psychiatrist was recommended. He is also diagnosed with ADHD, with a video game addiction and had a medication of Concerta. [ 11 ] On April 1, 2019, X met with the Social Services. At that time, he spent five to ten hours a day on video games. He heard voices of deceased people and he posted messages on Facebook saying that he felt depressed. He spoke about the numerous events of

conjugal violence and the alcohol consumption at home. [ 12 ] On April 2, 2019, the school noted some worrisome behaviours from X. He had difficulty to speak, his speech made no sense and he had a flat affect. [ 13 ] On April 16, 2016, the parents consulted because they were worried for their son who heard voices who told him to kill himself. [ 14 ] On April 18, 2019, X started a psychotherapy follow-up. [ 15 ] In May 2019, he was hospitalized in Town B for tuberculosis. He had visual hallucinations to the point that the Town B hospital decided to medevac him to the Town C Children's Hospital.

The mother told the medical staff that he has those hallucinations since he was 9 years old. He remained there until July 7, 2019. [ 16 ] Because of this hospitalization the psychotherapy follow-up was closed. [ 17 ] On November 25, 2019, the school met with the parents about X’s difficulty to manage his emotions. The school staff told the mother that the situation was better when he took his medication of Prozac. For the mother there was no difference and she did not see any issues with her son.

This medication was prescribed by Dre Larose in 2014, and it was also stopped by her. [ 18 ] On January 16, 2020, X met with Dre Larose, child psychiatrist. He spoke again about the conflicts at home. To ovoid those situations, he plays video games intensi-vely. The specialist met with the mother, but according to her, there is no problem. [ 19 ] On April 1, 2020, X was met again by the Social Services as he was still hearing voices. He felt rage against the person who bullied him and he had violent images in his head.

He also spoke about the situation at home which remains very conflictual. [ 20 ] On April 15, 2020, Dre Larose child psychiatrist, mentioned that X has depressive symptoms related to the family dynamic. According to her, a follow-up by the Social Services or a psychologist is required. The week after, X met Dre Larose and told her that he would like to go back to Town C as it is the place where he feels safe. He spoke about the last conjugal event. His father was very intoxicated and tried to beat his mother. The mother was calling X for him to protect her. He took a hockey stick and tried to beat his father.

At the same time, he said that he would like to stay in the community to protect his mother. [ 21 ] The mother was called and she confirmed that a conjugal violent event occurred, but according to her everything was fine, and the family does not need any services. [ 22 ] On April 30, 2020, the mother called the Social Services and told them to close the file of X. It was explained to her that he was 14 years old and he could decide, but nothing changed. [ 23 ] On May 26, the DYP worker went home. The mother was alone and became very aggressive and refused to speak.

Later, the same day, the DYP worker came back at home and the father was present with the children. He accepted to come at the office to discuss. [ 24 ] X was met alone and explain the family dynamic. His father is often drunk and violent towards his mother. He is scared. For him, the situation is getting worse. He would like to continue his medical follow-up, but his parents forbid him to go. He expressed the desire to live somewhere else. At the hearing, X repeated the same facts, in presence of his parents.

He was very courageous to express his feelings as such and it is obvious that he is very affected by the whole situation. [ 25 ] Y was less talkative, but confirms the situation of violence and drinking at home. [ 26 ] The DYP worker ignores how the children were doing at school because of the confinement as the report was received after the school closed. As for now, she had no communication from the school. [ 27 ] On June 16, the Court rendered a provisional measure and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and Y was entrusted to his paternal aunt, Ms. C.

Y sees his parents very often as he regularly comes at his parents’ place and both family regularly go on the land together. [ 28 ] The DYP maintains that X should be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre because he needs very specific help for his anger management issues and he also benefits from a weekly session with his educator. For now, he has a strict routine which is beneficial for him and he has a follow-up with the child psychiatrist.

After some incidents at the beginning of the placement, the situation is getting much better. [ 29 ] Questioned about the way to address his anger management issues, the DYP worker ignores the methods used by the educators. She did not speak with them about that. Also, she is aware that X takes some medication currently, but she ignores for what specific reason. [ 30 ] For now, X is entrusted to the Group Home in Town D. His parents live in Town E. The trip takes two days between Town D and Town E as a night in Town B is needed.

The DYP worker suggests that the parents travel for the visits to ovoid such travelling to X. [ 31 ] The DYP worker is aware of X’s wish to be entrusted to Town C and a request to [Center A] was made, but it had been refused. [ 32 ] At the rehabilitation centre, X continues to have hallucinations. The DYP worker hope that the prescribed medication is to prevent the hallucination, but as mentioned, she does not know. [ 33 ] X is still diagnosed with ADHD. He took Concerta in the past. During his last hospitalization it had been stopped.

It was supposed to be replaced by another medication, but it was not and the DYP worker does not know why.

Analysis Neglect in terms of health care [ 34 ] Everyone recognizes that X has mental health issues. The evidence shows that for sure the parents are concerned by their son well-being as they took some steps, but they also prevent him from having all the services he needs. [ 35 ] The mother recognizes that she called the Social Services to stop the follow-up that X need and want. [ 36 ] Today both parents express agree with this follow-up. But they also recognize that they stopped it because they were tired of the DYP investigation.

Such decision is not in the best interest of their child and doing so, his situation is endangered. Psychological ill-treatment [ 37 ] The Court also has the evidence that the children’s situation is endangered because of the way of life of the parents. The parents strongly deny their alcohol and conjugal violence issues. On his side, X does not hesitate, in presence of his parents, to express how he is scared and tired with the family situation. [ 38 ] It is true to say that the evidence is totally contradictory. Doing so, it is quite impossible to be sure of the intensity of the problematic.

Maybe it is less important than the situation described by X. Maybe the parents did not tell the entire truth. But for sure the truth is somewhere between those two versions. [ 39 ] The situation is problematic enough to seriously affect X and that is enough for the Court to declare that the situation of the children is endangered in such situation. Risk of neglect [ 40 ] The risk of neglect in the law concerns not only the specific needs of the child, but also his basic needs.

When a fight occurred in the house, even if it is generated by someone else and when the parents are intoxicated, for sure, they are not available to answer their children’s needs. Doing so, the security and development of the children are also endangered on this ground. Evidence [ 41 ] The Court would like to insist on the fact that the evidence in this situation was provided mostly by the testimony of X, called to testify by his lawyer. If he would have not testified, the evidence provided by the DYP was not strong enough to sustain his pretension as this evidence was mostly constituted by hearsay.

Measures [ 42 ] X would like to be entrusted under his mother's care. The bonds are very strong between both. He deeply loves his mum and the Court knows that the mother also deeply loves her son. [ 43 ] The parents live together and they never suggested that they could live separated. It is obvious that X cannot go back in the same environment as before. Moreover, he would like to go there to protect his mother. That is not a good reason to go back home. It is not the role of X to protect his mother.

It is the role of the parents to protect their children. [ 44 ] The Court knows that X does not wish to stay at the rehabilitation centre and he had a difficult period to adapt. But he needs a place where he will have a routine, where he will be surrounded by educators, where he will receive adapted services, and where medical services should be facilitated. [ 45 ] Regarding the contacts with his parents, he needs frequent contacts with them, but also with his siblings.

He is concerned by his mother’s well-being and seeing her often could reinsure him and help him to evolve. [ 46 ] On this aspect, the Court will impose a minimal frequency of one contact every two weeks. He is very attached to his parents, he was never been separated from them, and there is no clinical reason not to impose such contact. [ 47 ] Moreover, nowhere in the province of Quebec, an adolescent entrusted to a rehabilitation centre have to travel two days to go visit his parents and another two days to come back at the rehabilitation centre.

This situation is totally unacceptable no matter who is travelling, the parents or the child. Entrusting an adolescent in a rehabilitation centre, knowing such difficulty of travelling demonstrate that his best interest was not taking into consideration. The only consideration was the number of beds in the centre. This situation has to change immediately, and it is obvious that a placement at the Group home of Town B would give him the opportunity to have a better access to health care.

The time of travelling between Town C and Town E also has to be considered because maybe it would be easier from Montreal than from Town D, except for sure, if a quarantine is currently imposed. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 48 ] GRANTS the application; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the birth certificate of X upon receipt from the Director of civil status; [ 50 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) ii, (b) (2) and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 51 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre or a Group Home chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre;

[ 52 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the children and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with a minimal frequency of once every two weeks in person in the situation of X and a minimal frequency of twice a week in the situation of Y; [ 53 ] AUTHORIZED contacts between the parents and the children by any technological ways; [ 54 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and services regarding his situation, including a follow-up with a child psychiatrist, the Social Services and any other services recommended by the child psychiatrist, including medication without any delay; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the children and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the family; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 58 ] PERMITS the reintegration of the children at home if the situation allows it; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the parents stay sober in the presence of the children; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the children are not witnesses of any violence or tension; [ 61 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help for their conjugal problems and alcohol consumption; [ 62 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help for his anger management and violence; [ 63 ] 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; [ 64 ] THE WHOLE until August 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the children Me Eve Laoun, attorney for the mother Me Alexander Grey and Me Lauren Dahan, attorneys for the father Dates of hearing: August 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2020