2019 QCCQ 15203, 2019 QCCQ 15203

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910355 2019 QCCQ 15203 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000691-169 DATE: August 8, 2019 (written judgment rendered on December 5, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 May 24, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to her mother with aid, counselling or assistance until May 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation allows to keep the youth with her mother with the services of an external educator and aid, counselling or assistance until May 31, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present, but not represented. She denies most of the allegations and has no position on the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented.

Considering that he was duly served, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] X, who is 16 years old, is present and represented by Me Boudreau. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 6 ] On March 14, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The evidence revealed that X displayed serious behavioural disturbance (suicidal ideation, drugs and alcohol consumption, hospitalization, not attending school). The mother was reluctant with the involvement of the DYP, but agreed with the recommended placement.

The Court declared the security and development endangered [1] and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration if the situation allowed for it, the whole until September 30, 2016. [ 7 ] On September 12, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. X had been entrusted to the A Group Home and it was difficult. She ran away, she made crisis, and she displayed suicidal ideation. Because of those difficulties, she was transferred to the A’s Unit. Once there, she answered well to the program and improve her behaviour.

The mother was still struggling with alcohol abuse, and she can be mean towards the youth. The relation with the father is conflictual. As the situation got better in Town A, X was transferred back in Town B, but as soon as she arrived, the bad behaviours resurfaced. The mother became more and more reluctant to the DYP’s services. The father worked seven days a week, has no place at home to welcome his daughter, and displayed alcohol issues and suicidal ideation.

The Court maintained X to a rehabilitation centre until March 3, 2017, with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible. [ 8 ] On March 1, 2017 , the Court noted that from September 22, 2016, to January 22, 2017, X ran away and was found at her mother’s place. She ran away again on January 24, was found on January 31, and entrusted to a close unit in Town C. The evidence showed that except the running away, X was not in trouble since September 2016, and doing so, sent a clear message to the fact that she wants to be in her family. The Court maintained her at her mother’s place until December 12, 2017.

[ 9 ] On November 30, 2017 , the evidence shows that the situation was manageable at the mother’s place, but some issues remained. X was sexually abused twice. She consumed alcohol and had a poor attendance at school. The father was still struggling with an important alcohol consumption issue and was not collaborative. The mother took measures to reduce her alcohol consumption and realized the importance to collaborate for the interest of her daughter.

The Court maintained X under her care with the services of an external educator, the whole until May 31, 2018. [ 10 ] On May 24, 2018 , the Court noted that from October 2017 to February 2018, the situation improved a lot with the presence of the external educator. The schooling remained a difficulty, and she still had a very poor attendance despite her very good learning capacities. The mother continued to collaborate. The father still has alcohol issues, but start a follow-up with the Social Services, and was waiting to entrust A Treatment Center.

The Court maintained the adolescent with her mother with the services of an external educator. The Court also ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed and the recommendations be followed, the whole until May 31, 2019. [ 11 ] On May 15, 2018 , a provisional order was rendered and X was maintained with her mother. Facts [ 12 ] The DYP alleges that the adolescent still has alcohol issues and was involved in conflictual situations while being intoxicated. She is pregnant and the DYP suspects that she still consumes.

She also requested the police assistance because her boyfriend was abusive towards her. [ 13 ] X says that she starts to attend school regularly. She is only not attending gym classes as she is pregnant. She asserts that she does not consume alcohol, but she is conscious that the DYP has concerns regarding that. [ 14 ] She also mentions that their parents’ relationship is still conflictual and the police intervention was requested a few times since the last decision. [ 15 ] The mother has the same position as her daughter except regarding the relation between her and her husband.

She considers that her conjugal situation is much better. Regarding the collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection, she admits that she does not collaborate anymore as she is tired that the worker change all the time. [ 16 ] The DYP worker explains that the services of an external educator was provided to the family, but considering the lack of collaboration from the mother, now the clinical follow-up is only done with the adolescent. [ 17 ] She admits that the school attendance is better as X attends IPL classes, but not the regular program.

X always asserted that she plans to continue to go to school after giving birth. [ 18 ] For the DYP worker, the main concern is the lack of collaboration. She would like to close the file, but without having the appropriate information, she can’t do it. She is scared that the bad behaviour resurfaces after the birth, so she wants to have more information to be sure that everything goes well.

She also wants X and her parents to explain what will be the plan after the birth: how long she will breastfeed, when she will go back to school, who will babysit the baby, etc. [ 19 ] The mother testifies being tired of having the DYP in her life. She explained that when X was 11 years old, she was supposed to be followed only for six months, but five years later, they are still there. She collaborated for a while, but the DYP is still there. Now she does not want to collaborate anymore. [ 20 ] The mother works at the daycare. She and her husband provided financially for X and they will do it also for the baby.

For the mother the plan is clear: X will stay at home one month with the baby and after she will go back to school. The mother already obtained an eight-month maternity leave to take care of her grandchild when X will be at school. Analysis [ 21 ] Considering the position of the mother, who testified very honestly, the Court took time to explain to her that the DYP only requests to be reinsure regarding the situation. The mother answers that her daughter is only pregnant, she is not sick.

The family is very happy to welcome a new born and it’s not the first baby they will raise. [ 22 ] The Court had the opportunity to see that the mother is totally aware of the situation and has no concern regarding the future of X nor the future of the baby. That being said, the DYP should know if everything goes well, and after discussion with the parties, it was agreed that the DYP will be present until the end of May 2020, and only one meeting a month will take place.

The mother engages herself to participate to the condition that the file will be close. [ 23 ] The DYP worker agreed with this frequency and delay. The file will be closed after that. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, continue to be endangered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with her mother; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a regular basis;

[ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professional; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from engaging in any form of aggression or violence in the presence of the youth; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services or other services for their alcohol and personal issues; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contact between the youth and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the parents; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: August 8, 2019