2020 QCCQ 12715, 2020 QCCQ 12715

Protection de la jeunesse — 209315 2020 QCCQ 12715 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000346-103 DATE: August 7, 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 A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 prolong a decision rendered on September 26, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre until August 7, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her mother and that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it, until March 30, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present but not represented. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered.

She disagrees with the measures and asks that she be entrusted to her. [ 4 ] Mr. B, the interested party and X’s biological father, is present and represented by Me Nada Boumeftah. He recognizes that the security and development of X are still endangered and he would like her to be entrusted to her mother in Town A. [ 5 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered. She disagrees with the suggested measures. She wants to be entrusted to her mother or to a foster family.

History of the situation [ 6 ] On May 5, 2010 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 7 ] On June 8, 2010 , the Court declared the security and development of the child endangered. At that time, both parents displayed an alcohol consumption issue. The father was violent towards the mother. The father tried to commit suicide, and the children were left without any supervision. During the DYP intervention, the mother threatened to kill herself if her children be removed from her care.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of six months, with a reinsertion with the parents as soon as possible, with aid, counselling and assistance for nine months. [ 8 ] On December 14, 2010 , the revision hearing was postponed and the child was maintained in a foster family. On January 25, 2011 , as the mother just died, the file was postponed and X was maintained in a foster family. [ 9 ] On February 22, 2011 , the revision was heard. The father was detained until December 26, 2010. The mother was detained from October 23, 2010, to January 17, 2011, for impaired driving.

Two days after her release, the mother died from smoke intoxication due to the fire of her apartment. The parents had been drinking, and the father was highly intoxicated upon the police arrival. Following that, the father started to receive help and to collaborate. X continued to adapt well to his foster family. The Court reminded to the father

that his involvement would be important in the following months. The Court maintained the child in a foster family for a period of six months with a reintegration if possible. [ 10 ] On August 16, 2011 , the father was still in a grieving process following the death of the mother. Waiting for his house to be rebuilt, the father was living at his brother’s place, the one to whom X was entrusted to. The father had a good job. The maternal grandmother who lived in Town A was available to foster X as the uncle, who was also able to continue.

The Court insisted to the father on the importance for him to take decision regarding his children. The Court maintained the child to a foster family for another year and ordered that medical care be provided to X. [ 11 ] On July 16, 2012 , the evidence showed that the father still displayed alcohol and drug consumption issues. Since the last order, he was detained for 169 days. When he was not detained, he saw his children every day as he stayed at his brother’s place, and helped him with the education of his children and provided financially for them. The uncle was still available to take care of the children.

The uncle and his spouse lived difficult moments, but their situation came back stable. X expressed being well there and happy to be with her brother Ned and to see her father often. The Court entrusted X under the uncle’s care until she reaches her majority and ordered health care services. [ 12 ] On February 12, 2013 , the file was revised as difficulties occurred in the foster family. The foster parents had an alcohol consumption issue, and the foster mother became violent towards her biological daughter. The foster parents were already detained in July and December 2011, and in July 2012, for the same reason.

The children were entrusted to Ms. C for a few days. After the foster parent’s release, the children came back to their place. The Court maintained the child in a foster family for a period of six months, with the precision that she cannot stay in this foster family. [ 13 ] On July 17, 2013 , the file was reviewed. The maternal grandmother has adopted X. Ms. C asked the children to be removed from her place because of their behavioural issues. After a meeting with the DYP worker, the father, the uncle and the aunt, it was decided to try again at the uncle’s place.

In April 2013, the aunt, while intoxicated, assaulted a little girl entrusted to her, and ran away with her biological daughter. A few days later, X and her brother were left alone at home during the night. In August 2013, the father was arrested for sexual assault. He was still displaying an alcohol consumption issue and did not receive services. He was still working full time, but had no house yet. X was very close to her brother, and the children missed their mother a lot. They are very attached to their father.

The maternal grandmother (adoptive mother) who fosters one of the children was still available to foster X and her brother. The grandmother had difficulty with the DYP, but the Court was impressed by her testimony. She asks to be evaluated. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family with a reintegration at the grandmother’s (adoptive mother) place if possible. The Court ordered health care services, including a follow-up with a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

The Court also ordered that the grandmother be assessed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist. [ 14 ] On March 20, 2014 , the situation was reviewed again. In July 2013, the children were entrusted to Ms. D. It was difficult at the beginning as she was a foster family for the first time, but the children adapted very well. X had behavioural issues at the beginning of the school year. Ms. D became pregnant and planned to give birth in Town A. Ms. D expressed that she would not be able to keep the children after the birth of her child.

The children were entrusted in another foster family and were very destabilized by this transfer. Sadly, Ms. D lost her baby and came back up to the North and asked if she could have the children back. At that time, the children went to 25 foster families. The Court entrusted the children to Ms. D specifically and ordered a psychological evaluation if necessary. [ 15 ] On March 17, 2015 , as the father was detained, the revision hearing was postponed. It was also postponed on April 9 and on May 21, 2015 .

The child was maintained in a foster family. [ 16 ] On June 16, 2015 , the Court noted that the child was entrusted to more than 30 foster families. The child was doing generally well, but sometimes she could have difficult behaviours. The DYP asked for a possibility to have respite in a rehabilitation centre if necessary. The Court entrusted the child to Ms. D and Mr.

F until she reaches her majority, authorized respite in a rehabilitation centre for no more than five days in a row, and ordered health care services such as psychological follow-up and the service of an external educator. [ 17 ] On March 19, 2019, the Court was seized with an application for revision. Since December 2017, X lived with a new foster family as she had conflicts with the previous one. X received psychological support for her past traumas. She missed a lot of school and she consumed marijuana. The father had been detained and the mother was still living in Town A and was not really involved.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family, ordered that she continue to receive psychological support, the whole until November 30, 2019. [ 18 ] On July 30, 2019 , the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre on a provisional measure and recommends that Ms. E be assessed as a potential foster family. [ 19 ] On September 26, 2019 , the evidence shows that since March 2019, the adolescent displayed suicidal ideation many times. She also refused to respect the rules, and she was rude with her foster parents.

In June and July she was entrusted to two different foster families without notifying the mother previously. The doctor recommended that she be entrusted to a more structured environment and that she receive intensive psychotherapy and services in psychiatry. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until August 7, 2020. Facts [ 20 ] Following the last decision, X was entrusted to the Group Home in Town B. She went to school on a daily basis, and she worked part-time at the grocery store. [ 21 ] During Christmas 2019, she went for a home visit.

After her return, she started having behavioural issues again. She assaulted a worker, she insulted another youth and she uttered threats against the Group Home staff. She was also caught smoking in her room. During an assault on a worker, the police had to intervene and she also assaulted the police officer. She had to be placed in the isolation room a few times.

[ 22 ] On February 14, 2020, she assaulted again a staff member and she was charged under YCJA. Considering the increase of her behavioural issues she was transferred to the Girl’s Unit in Town C. Once there she also had a lot of difficulty to comply and again, she had to be placed in the isolation room a few times. [ 23 ] She had a home visit for her birthday by the middle of March 2020. The visit went well and she resected the rules, but when it was time to come back, she ran away for four weeks. She was found on April 15, 2020, when a warrant was finally asked.

During the intervention to make her board the plane, she made threats to kill herself and she had to be hospitalized. The day after, she had to be medevac under sedation as she was not collaborative. She confirmed that she consume cannabis, cocaine and speed pills during her running away. [ 24 ] On January 11, 2020, she met with Dr. Beltempo, psychologist.

He concludes and recommends what follows: […] Her cognitive potential is in the Borderline range of functioning but X can learn if provided extra time to process information and to adequate support and motivation. […] […] We strongly recommend that she be referred to Dr. Michelle Larose, MD, FRCP, and child psychiatrist for further examination to rule in or rule out FASD. X’s behaviours of oppositional defiance and aggressiveness reflect a combination of attachment problems, and/or issues of repeated abandonment compounded by perhaps an underlying fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

We also recommend a high structured environment with consistency, and a balance of firm (and respectful) application of rules and consequences. X needs instructions to be repeated and to be visually explained as much as possible. She also needs psychoeducation on the use of alcohol and drugs. X needs individual counseling through the Social Services to address the fears of abandonment (grief from loss of Mother) and emotion–regulation and skills-building approaches like Dialectical Behavior Therapy which can be integrated with the Group Home staff.

Lastly we recommend anger replacement techniques on an individual basis to be provided by her Key Worker at the Group Home. [ 25 ] On June 4, 2020, X was supposed to meet with Dre Larose child psychiatrist, for the requested FASD assessment, but due to technical issues on the side of Dre Larose, the meeting did not take place. The DYP does not know when this assessment will be made. [ 26 ] For the last two months, the Group Home staff notes an improvement of X’s behaviour.

She started working for the town and she is described as a hard-worker. [ 27 ] The adoptive mother (biological grandmother) still lives in Town A. She is a receptionist for the [corporation A]. According to the DYP worker, despite the intervention made by the Court at the last hearing requesting her to collaborate more with the DYP, her collaboration remains minimal. She answers the e-mails, but no more. She never gives any details about her situation and never requests any information about her daughter.

She also refused that her apartment be evaluated. [ 28 ] The DYP is still looking for the most appropriate place for X. The people suggested by X are still options for the DYP. They just need to confirm their interest and to be assessed as a foster family. Analysis [ 29 ] X’s situation remains clearly endangered. She displayed very serious behavioural issues until recently. The improvement made have to be underlined, but those improvements are recent. [ 30 ] She is encouraged to continue to do well at school as well at her job.

For the moment, she still needs rehabilitation services, but as mentions, she deserves as any other child to live in a family environment so the steps will have to be taken to make the reintegration at her mother’s place or in a foster family as soon as possible. [ 31 ] Considering the improvements and the reintegration planned, the contacts with her mother and her father have to be increased. Those contacts will give her the opportunity to demonstrate her ability to behave well. [ 32 ] The mother will have to collaborate and to authorize the DYP to assess her house.

If a reintegration is planned under her care, this evaluation has to be done. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the youth, the mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the youth, the mother and Mr. B report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth receive the services of an external educator during and after the reintegration process; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and services;

[ 40 ] ORDERS that the recommendations set out from Dr. Beltempo be implemented without any delay, including the evaluation recommended; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. B remain sober in the presence of the adolescent; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

B seek help through the Social Services concerning their substances abuse and personal issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, the mother and Mr.

B are determined by the Director of Youth Protection, with a minimal frequency of one home visit each month; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and her family; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 47 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until March 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the youth Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 7, 2020