2020 QCCQ 12901, 2020 QCCQ 12901

Protection de la jeunesse — 209316 2020 QCCQ 12901 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000356-102 DATE: August 4, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 19, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [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, unknown address in [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 January 21, 2019, regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2007. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted X to a foster family until January 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to entrust X to a foster family until July 31, 2021. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun.

She ignores most of the allegations and she agrees with the measures, she wants more contacts with her daughter, but she agrees to respect her daughter’s desire. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. Considering the father refused to receive communication from the DYP since 2012, considering he is not involved in his daughter’s life, the Court proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] X did not wish to attend the hearing. She is dully represented by Me Sinnett. X does not take position on the application, but she agrees with the recommended measures.

Historical Situation [ 6 ] On August 25, 2010 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. Both parents displayed alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. They were detained at the time of the hearing. X was entrusted to a foster family since June 6, 2010, but followed by the DYP since 2008. The Court declared the security and development of X endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family for one year with frequent contact with her parents. [ 7 ] On August 30, 2011 , Justice Leduc revised the previous decision. X was 4 years old. The mother admitted still having alcohol issues.

She was released, but had to go back in detention for breach of conditions. The parents did not maintain regular contact with their daughter. The mother expressed the desire to entrust [Centre A] and to have her daughter back possibly. X was very attached to her mother. She was entrusted to two different foster families since the beginning and started to develop behavioural issues.

The Court entrusted her to a foster family for another six months and insisted on the fact that the life plan would be necessary if the situation does not change. [ 8 ] On February 21, 2012 , the evidence showed that the mother did not collaborate with the services, she was detained and did not ask for access. The father was still not involved and did not desire to be. The foster family renounced to continue, but Ms. C, a previous foster family, was available on a long-term basis and X was entrusted with her since January 4, 2012. She was adapting well. X was known to strongly react in an unstable situation.

To adequately evaluate the situation, the Court prolonged the placement for six months. [ 9 ] On July 16, 2012 , X was 5 years old. The mother was homeless in Town B. X was doing very well in her foster family who

recently moved to [province A]. The Court entrusted her to Mr. and Ms. C until she reaches her majority. [ 10 ] On October 30, 2018 , as the information submitted was to the fact that X was not able to travel up to North for the Court hearing, because of the high risk of psychological instability, and as her lawyer was not able to speak with her over the phone, the Court postponed the hearing to January 21, 2019, and ordered that the status quo be maintained. [ 11 ] On January 21, 2019 , the Court revised the situation.

The evidence reveals that X’s behavioural issues became more worrisome in June 2017, where X assault his foster mother, Ms. C. The foster family sought professional help to resolve these issues and the foster father stopped working to be totally available. The situation did not improve and in June 2018, she was moved to another foster family. X remained registered in the same school and kept contact with the C. The hearing took place by videoconference because the Court was informed that the travelling in the North would be too stressful for X. Surprisingly, at the hearing, X asked for visits up to the North.

At school, X is doing very well, she is a very good student with good marks and behaviour. The [DYP A] worker express some difficulties to fully answer X’s needs as despite her many requests, the DYP refused to provide information regarding X’s background. With that information, it would be easier to understand her needs and the reasons of her behavioural issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family, withdrawn the attributes of parental authorities from the parents and granted it to the DYP, ordered the DYP to provide the [province A] services with a history of X’s situation and notified the CDPDJ with the decision, the whole until January 31, 2020. [ 12 ] On January 29, 2020 , the revision was postponed as the adolescent was not informed about the Court hearing and no travelling was organized for her. She wished to be present.

The Court postponed the hearing and maintained the status quo . [ 13 ] On March 20, 2020 , the hearing was postponed again and the measures were maintained. Facts [ 14 ] As X was already with Mr. and Ms. D since June 2019, she was maintained there after the last decision. [ 15 ] Unfortunately, the bad behaviours she displayed at the C resurfaced and at the beginning of March 2019, the placement with the D has to be ended. The family had difficulty to manage X’s aggression and defiance. [ 16 ] On March 21, 2019, X was entrusted to Mr. and Ms. E.

After a few weeks doing well, X became aggressive and destroyed a door in the house and call the 911 against Ms. E for false allegations. [ 17 ] On April 6, 2019, she was placed on an emergency placement with Mr. and Ms. F. The house was too small to keep her there and her behaviour could not be managed by the foster family who had to call the police to ensure the safety of X and the other children. [ 18 ] On June 6, 2019, X was entrusted to Mr. and Ms. G. This family has three other foster children and one with special needs.

Because of that, they were not considered to foster her, but since that time, they developed good bonds with her and they are thinking about a long-term placement. [ 19 ] The Family and Children’s Services worked hard to maintain X in the same school despite all that change by driving her to school every day. [ 20 ] X has great difficulty to open up regarding her emotions and totally refused counselling or therapy. In 2018, she was diagnosed with attachment disorder and she was prescribed with a medication that she is still taking. [ 21 ] On December 8, 2019, an incident at the foster home was reported.

The foster father had consumed alcohol, and a violent event would have occurred. The Family and Children’s Services took care of the situation immediately and provide X with a cell phone to be able to call if something wrong happened. The foster father admitted the facts and apologized the day after. The family is recovering since this event and Mr.

G understood that he will have to regain X’s trust. [ 22 ] Since the last decision, X maintained some contacts with the H’s and the C’s. [ 23 ] All the social history of X was transmitted to the Family and Children’s Services as requested by the Court. [ 24 ] The mother is still living in Town A, and she is in relation with Mr. I. She was working at [Company A] until the pandemic. She had two children with Mr. I, and both are entrusted until majority. The mother and her spouse still have consumption and violence issues. The last conjugal event occurred on May 9, 2020.

The mother had stabbed her boyfriend and punctured his lung. He did not press charge and they are still in relationship. [ 25 ] The mother took steps to entrust Portage treatment centre in October 2018, but she left after three days. She indicated that she would prefer to attend [Centre B] where she could speak Inuktitut. On August 4, 2019, the mother was released from detention and had to serve a period of house arrest. At that time, she planned to attend [Centre A] or [Centre B]. The mother is on the waiting list for both centres.

Waiting for that, the mother continues to participate to her follow-up with the addiction counsellor. [ 26 ] X is affected by the absence of her mother in her life. A visit was discussed for July 2019, but as the mother was detained, the visit was cancelled, and X also said that she did not want to come. [ 27 ] A visit took place at the beginning of January 2020 for two days. X was accompanied by Ms. J and Ms. K. The first day, X spent time with her brother and really enjoyed the time spent with him. The mother was also present, but there was not a lot of interaction between X and her mother.

The day after another contact was planned at the mother’s house, but it had to be cancelled as the mother was not at home and was intoxicated. Instead, X spent time with her aunt. Even if she appreciated being with her aunt, she was very disappointed and very emotional because of her mother’s absence. She refused to speak on her trip back to Montreal. [ 28 ] The return at home was difficult as it was at school. The foster family mentioned that X had difficulty to control her emotion at

least until beginning of April 2020. At school, she was very disturbing and she was suspended. A meeting took place on January 29 for her reintegration. As the school staff know her very well it was known that it was not a normal attitude for her. The school was open to follow her pace and to adapt her

schedule to facilitate her integration. [ 29 ] Since then, X did not ask for other visit with her mother nor for phone calls. The mother did not neither and never asks for news. [ 30 ] Ms. [social worker 2] testified for the DYP, but she is not the worker assigned to this file. Many questions were asked regarding the information provided to the mother about her daughter. Ms. [social worker 2] did not give any details to the mother as she is not the primary worker in the file. She only knows that before the last visit in January, the mother received general information.

The mother ignores the facts that her daughter was diagnosed with an attachment disorder and that she meets with a psychiatrist. Ms. [social worker 2] confirmed that she never spoke about that with the mother. Maybe other workers did, but she ignores it. She commits to meet the mother to give her more details. [ 31 ] The evidence also reveals that the mother was informed about the changes of foster families after those changes were made. [ 32 ] The intervention plan prepared by Ms. J, the collaborator in [province A] was filled under

section 292 Cpc. Few questions were asked to Ms. [social worker 2] about different aspects of this plan, but as she did not have the documents with her, she was not able to answer the questions. She also ignores the measures taken by the Children Aid Society to implement a cultural plan for X. Doing so, the Court suspended a few minutes to give her the chance to find the answer. She comes back and answer that no cultural plan had been implemented as the main objective was to stabilize X in her foster family. [ 33 ] X is registered to an Inuit program in Town B which started in February 2020.

Ms. [social worker 2] explains that some meeting took place with this organization and services were provided to X in regards with the anxiety about the Court, but Ms. [social worker 2] ignores if X appreciated going there or not. [ 34 ] Ms. [social worker 2] also ignores why no psychological service is provided to X. She assumes that Ms. J will take steps to provide it if requested by X and the foster family. [ 35 ] The foster parents express the desire to keep X on a long term basis despite her difficult behaviour and her mood. They consider being able to manage the situation and are very attached to her.

They are also very involved in her medical follow-up. As for now, X is regularly followed by the family doctor. In her written report, Ms. J mentions that X refuses to see any other health professional. Analyze [ 36 ] X still has behavioural issues and a lot of difficulty to manage her emotions. After many changes of foster families because of her bad behaviour, she is at the Gs’ home since beginning of June 2019. The foster parents are attached to her and express being able to deal with her changes of mood and her personal difficulties. [ 37 ] The Court also see that since the last order, Ms. J and Ms.

K remained very involved in the situation. They went with her in Town A for the visit with her family and doing so they were able to understand more about her backgrounds and feelings. [ 38 ] For sure, everyone would like to provide more specific help to X as for example a psychological follow-up. But as X refuses those services, if imposed, it would not be as beneficial as we would like. Doing so, the Court will not impose it, but will invite Ms.

J to remind X that she has the right to receive it and she does not have to hesitate to ask for when she is ready. [ 39 ] Regarding the contacts with the mother, the Court also consider that X’s desire has to be respected. X requested the contacts with the mother, and she had a lot of questions regarding her origin. This contact occurred and all measures had been taken to be sure that everything went well. Unfortunately, the mother did not take this opportunity and X was very affected. It took three months for her to deal with her emotions.

Such contact is not beneficial at all for her, so no contact has to be imposed, but X has to be reminded that if she wishes to have one, if she feels ready, she has the right to ask for a contact or a trip to Town A.

In this sense, according to X’s desire, the contacts with the extended family members have to be maintained. [ 40 ] The mother’s lawyer submits to the Court that the rights of the child were wronged because the cultural aspects were not taken into consideration in the different decision such as the choice of a foster family, the cultural activities, and the learning of Inuktitut, as imposed by the YPA and by the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families . The Court does not share this position. The situation of X is very particular. She lives down South for many years.

It is the environment she always knew. The DYP did not make specific decision to prevent her from knowing her culture. Different circumstances made her distance from her culture. The first one was the reason why she had been removed from her mother’s care and required to be entrusted to a foster family for her safety. After that, she developed bonds with a foster family and she was supposed to stay there until her majority. For sure, this family moved to [province A], but at that time, X was developing very well with them.

Unfortunately, the situation changed, but during all those years, X was raised down South and it became for her a way of life. The evidence of that is the fact that she does not want to go up North. [ 41 ] The mother’s lawyer also submits that the rights have been wronged because the mother is not informed about her daughter’s situation. On one side, the mother is not very involved in her daughter’s life and when she comes for a visit, the visit has to be cancelled because the mother is not available to see her.

The mother has a responsibility to remain involved in her daughter’s life and to keep in touch with the DYP. On another side, the DYP also has the responsibility to inform the mother about the change in her daughter’s life. For example, when the child is transferred to a new foster family, it is the responsibility of the DYP to inform the mother and to consult her in a reasonable delay according to the circumstances of this change. 2.3. Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger; and

(

b) must, if the circumstances are appropriate, favour the means that allow the child and the child’s parents to take an active

part in making decisions and choosing measures that concern them. Every person, body or institution having responsibilities under this Act towards a child and the child’s parents must encourage the participation of the child and the parents, and the involvement of the community. The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. 2.4.

Every person having responsibilities towards a child under this Act, and every person called upon to make decisions with respect to a child under this Act shall, in their interventions, take into account the necessity (1) of treating the child and the child’s parents with courtesy, fairness and understanding, and in a manner that respects their dignity and autonomy; (2) of ensuring that any information or explanation that must be furnished to a child under this Act is presented in language appropriate to the child’s age and understanding; (3) of ensuring that the parents have understood the information or explanations that must be furnished to them under this Act; (4) of giving the child and the child’s parents an opportunity to present their points of view, express their concerns and be heard at the appropriate time during the intervention; and (5) of opting for measures, in respect of the child and the child’s parents, which allow action to be taken diligently to ensure the child’s protection, considering that a child’s perception of time differs from that of adults, and which take into consideration the following factors: (

a) the proximity of the chosen resource; (

b) the characteristics of cultural communities; (

c) the characteristics of Native communities, including Aboriginal customary tutorship and adoption. 7. Before a child is transferred from one alternative living environment to another, the child’s parents and the child himself, if he is capable of understanding, must be consulted. The child must receive the information and preparation necessary for his transfer.

The alternative living environment to which the child is entrusted must also be consulted unless doing so would be contrary to the interest of the child. [ 42 ] The DYP worker recognized that the mother received just some information about her daughter and that she should be aware of much more. Doing so, the Court will order the DYP to meet the mother urgently to give her all the details about her daughter. [ 43 ] After more than one year in the same foster family who is ready to receive X on a long term basis, it will be urgent to prepare a life plan for her.

It will certainly be beneficial for X to gain stability and to be able to root in her family. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 44 ] GRANTS the application; [ 45 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on March 22, 2007, are still endangered; [ 46 ] DECLARES that the youth’s and the mother’s rights have been wronged under

section 2.3, 2.4 and 7 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating child and youth protection centre; [ 48 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and services such as a follow-up with a child and youth psychiatrist as long as X accepts to receive this service; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents report at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 52 ] AUTHORIZES and ENCOURAGES the maintain of relation between X and her extended family members; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of X; [ 54 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to seek help through the Social Services, or another resource deemed appropriate for her substance abuse, personal and relationship issues;

[ 55 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the mother’s presence at appointments with professionals and her level of involvement with the services provided; [ 56 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth protection namely regarding health, travelling including passport, school, extracurricular activities and driving licence; [ 57 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to meet with the mother to give her a complete portrait of her daughter’s situation and to regularly inform her of her daughter’s development and of any change in her daughter’s situation; [ 58 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the parents and the foster family; [ 59 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to prepare a life plan for X; [ 60 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a copy of the present decision to Ms.

J , worker for the Children Aid Society, collaborator in the situation of X; [ 61 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 62 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 63 ] THE WHOLE until July 31, 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 Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: August 4, 2020