2019 QCCQ 14813, 2019 QCCQ 14813

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910453 2019 QCCQ 14813 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000944-196 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 [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled [...] 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 that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are endangered according to paragraphs (b) (1) iii. and (f) [1] of

section 38 the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP asks that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for ten months with reintegration with the parents if the situation allows for it. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are present and represented by Me Mocanu Culuri. They admit most of the allegations, and they agree with the measures. [ 4 ] X, who is 14 years old, is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits some of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures.

History of the situation [ 5 ] The application was fixed for hearing in April 2019, but because of the lack of time, the file did not proceed. No provisional measures were requested by the DYP at that time. For the DYP worker, as X knows she is watched by the DYP, she should behave well. [ 6 ] In May 2019, the file was postponed again for the same reason. No measures were required. [ 7 ] On June 7, 2019, a provisional measure was finally requested and X was entrusted to the [Unit A] in Town A. Facts [ 8 ] X is 14 years old.

She is living with her adoptive parents who are her biological grandparents. [ 9 ] Since March 2018, the DYP received and retained many reports regarding neglect, behavioural issues, sexual abuse and physical abuse. [ 10 ] On August 29, 2018, the mother was met for the first time. X was rude with her. The mother admitted that X displayed behavioural issues for the last year. She had already been evaluated for suicidal risk.

X said having a secret, but refused to speak about it. [ 11 ] The same day, the biological mother met the police officer to file a complaint saying her daughter would have been the victim of sexual abuse.

[ 12 ] The day after the adoptive mother admitted having no hope to be able to impose a structure to X who does not listen to her at all. She only wanted to be with her friends and waited that her parents fall asleep to leave the house during the night. [ 13 ] In October, X had many suicidal ideation, has a poor school attendance and was hospitalized three days for a cocaine overdose. [ 14 ] In November and December 2018, she was evaluated again a few times for suicidal risk.

The last time, she was medevaced to Town B and ran away from the hospital. [ 15 ] According to the school authorities, X is a very good student and despite her very poor attendance, her homework is always done and she has very good marks. [ 16 ] In December 2018, the parents were met again and confronted to the numerous recent events in which X put her at risk.

The parents refused the help from the DYP, and also refused that X be evaluated by a child psychiatrist. [ 17 ] At the end of January 2019, the previous DYP worker spoke with X’s teacher who informed him that her motivation decrease a lot, and she is always intoxicated with cannabis when she comes at school. [ 18 ] In March, X was affected by the murder of a woman from her community. Since that time, it is noted that her consumption of cannabis increases to help her to cope with her emotions. The mother was met and according to her, the situation improved recently.

When a placement is suggested, she answered that it would be more prejudicial for her daughter than to stay at home with them. [ 19 ] On April 5, two weeks before the date fixed for the hearing, X left for Town B without her parent’s authorization. Once there, she found a place to sleep, she took the car from someone and when she was found, she threatens her parents to kill herself if they call the DYP. [ 20 ] Still in April, just before the Court date, the mother admitted being overwhelmed with X’s behaviours, the youth threatened to commit suicide.

The biological mother also put pressure on her saying that the current situation is all her fault. The mother considers that a placement would finally be appropriate, but she is scared that X would commit suicide or run away if she is not properly supervised. [ 21 ] Less than one week before the hearing fixed in April, the teacher informed the DYP worker that X was now totally unmotivated. She does not come any more at school, nor does her homework. Despite that, and even if the school year was quite finished, X would have been able to succeed her school year as she has very good learning capacities.

She was told to go to school, but she did not until the end of the school year. [ 22 ] The same month, the DYP worker learned that X was injured in February, and ran away from the hospital because she was scared to be medevaced. Even if the medical team knew that the DYP was involved, they never judged relevant to call the DYP worker at that time. [ 23 ] On June 7, 2019, provisional measures were finally requested and the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre.

She was placed at the [Unit A] in Town A where she was generally doing well. [ 24 ] At the end of June, the mother asked to visit the unit to see the structure imposed, in a way to apply the same at home. This visit is planned for July 8. During the mother’s presence in Town A, X misbehaved and was very disrespectful with her. X ran away and came back the day after with marks all over her body. Later she explained that she had consensual sexual intercourse with an adolescent, and that she would have been bitten for pleasure.

At that time, she was intoxicated by alcohol and cannabis. [ 25 ] A few days later, she called her mother to apologize for her attitude. She also met with Dr. Beltempo, but the writing report with conclusions was not done yet. A transferred to another unit in Town C was done on July 25, 2019, and the mother travelled with her to facilitate her integration. [ 26 ] The DYP worker explains that the plan is to maintain X in Town C. If the situation improves, she will maybe return to Town A. Regarding the parents, an external educator is assigned to help them before and after the reintegration.

The DYP will also work according to the recommendations from Dr. Beltempo as soon as they are received. [ 27 ] The DYP worker notes that the parents improved their collaboration with her and the educators from the rehabilitation centre a lot. The parents are also more sensitive to the facts that it’s important to call the Social Services as soon as X displays suicidal ideation. [ 28 ] Only one meeting took place with the external educator as there is no regular one in the village A and the presence of an interpreter is needed. [ 29 ] The integration is planned as soon as possible.

The DYP worker is conscious that the parents are quite old and it became difficult for them to travel to Town C. They also miss their daughter a lot, and it is the same for X. [ 30 ] The mother testifies that she would like to have more information regarding her daughter. She considers that X has to understand that the life is not a game. Analysis [ 31 ] The situation of endangerment is admitted by the parties, and the evidence was provided. [ 32 ] The Court is very concerned by the lack of interventions in this file.

The situation of X is known for one year and half, firstly because of her behavioural issues, not respect of authorities, and finally in October, when she starts to display suicidal ideation. [ 33 ] The parents were met only six months after the first report and after that, even if the situation was degenerating, no voluntary measures or services were offered.

[ 34 ] The DYP worker present at the hearing ignores when the DYP concluded that X’s situation was endangered. We only know that the application under

section 38 YPA was signed one year later, and no application under

section 76.1 YPA was joined. [ 35 ] The law is clear. As soon as the DYP concludes to endangerment, he has to offer services. The DYP worker justifies the absence of services by the fact that the parents did not collaborate. The Court is convinced that the parent’s collaboration was not so good in 2018. It is for this kind of situation that the law allows the DYP to seize the Court. [ 36 ] But there is more.

How can we blame parents not collaborating with services when no service is offered? [ 37 ] As mentioned, the DYP had the responsibility to seize the Court and he did not because X was supposed to behave well because she was “watched” by the DYP. Did she behave well during that time? Not at all. Since the signature of the application she stopped going to school, she left for Town B without any authorization and she continues to display suicidal ideation numerous times. [ 38 ] When we read the reports filed, we sincerely ask ourselves if we are waiting to find her hanged in a shack.

Considering the very high percentage of suicide in the […] population, the Court can’t explain how it was so long, and it took so many messages from the youth before an intervention be done. Adolescents from [Region A] live a lot of trauma, they also suffer from the multigenerational traumas and it is more than urgent to intervene in each situation properly before the DYP have to answer about his lack of intervention when a tragedy strikes. [ 39 ] The parties agree with the suggested measures which are in X’s best interest.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the application; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born [...], 2005, are endangered according to paragraphs (b) (1) iii. and (

f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre for a period of ten months, with a possible reintegration with the parents if the situation allows for it; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the recommendations of the psychological assessment be followed; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the family receive the services from an external educator and that the recommendations be followed with the help of a translator; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth undergo a psychological or psychiatric assessment and follow through with the recommendations; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a regular basis; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the frequency, terms, and modalities of the contacts between the youth and the parents are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 50 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection is agreeing with a visit in person once a month; [ 51 ] ORDERS that contacts by phone, between the youth and the parents, are as frequent as possible; [ 52 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE of the mother desire to be informed more frequently about her daughter’s situation; [ 53 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 54 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigation in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 55 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 57 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 58 ] THE WHOLE until November 9, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Ana-Maria Mocanu Culuri, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: August 8, 2019