2019 QCCQ 19639, 2019 QCCQ 19639

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910351 2019 QCCQ 19639 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000345-105 DATE: January 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on August 27, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased 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 revise a decision rendered on January 30, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and ordered that the youth remain with his father with aid, counsel and assistance until January 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to keep the youth with his father and that he be entrusted to a foster family, with a possible reintegration with the father if the situation allows it, until January 31, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel.

He admits some of the allegations, but his lawyer doesn’t have his position on the recommendations, and ask for a postponement. The other parties ask to proceed in his absence. [ 4 ] Considering the application was duly served to the father, considering he is well aware there is a court hearing today, considering a recent event occurred which could explain his absence and considering the interest of the youth and the importance for him to make a decision quickly, the Court authorizes to proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Martineau.

She explains to the Court that she doesn’t have his admissions on the allegations, it is a sensible file and it was not in his best interest to go with the admissions. Moreover, the information contained in the report is clear. She has a clear mandate as for the recommendations, he wants to go to a foster home. [ 6 ] After hearing the evidence, Me Martineau recommends to the Court to add the following specific orders: • More contact with his sisters Y and Z; • A placement in City A and if not possible, at least in an [origin A] family; • A psychological follow-up.

Historical situation [ 7 ] On May 5, 2010 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 8 ] On June 8, 2010 , the Court declared the security and development of the child in danger. 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. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] 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. [ 11 ] 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 City B 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. [ 12 ] 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 his sister Y and to see his father often. The Court entrusted X under the uncle’s care until he reaches his majority and ordered health care services. [ 13 ] 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 few days.

X started to have behavioural issues (violence and not respecting the rules). 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 he can’t stay in this foster family. [ 14 ] On July 17, 2013 , the file was reviewed. 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. At the end of February 2013, X’s behaviour gets worse at school.

In April 2013, the aunt, while intoxicated, assaulted a little girl entrusted to her, and ran away with her biological daughter. Few days later, X and his sister were left alone at home during the night. Still in April, X met with the psychologist and cry a lot during the meeting. He spoke about a ghost who come to visit him during the night. He said not feeling well in this house and expressed the desire to live with his father and his sister. 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 described as follows in the decision: [12] X is nine-years-old. He is an active boy, sociable and loves sports. Recently, he began to have many outbursts and tantrums at school. He seems to have lived without structure for so long and has developed survival skills to compensate for his lack of parental guidance. He has gone through some stressful events in recent years and through it all, he has shown courageousness and resiliency.

However, recent behaviours have shown that past events such as the death of his mother and his numerous placements in foster care has taken a toll on him. At this time, he needs to be in an environment with stability and structure. [ 15 ] X was very close to his sister, and the children missed their mother a lot. They are very attached to their father. The maternal grandmother who fosters one of the children was still available to foster X and his sister. 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 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. [ 16 ] On February 11, 2014 , on a provisional measure, X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and the Court recommend the Group Home in City C. [ 17 ] On March 20, 2014 , the grandmother was declared as an interested party. 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 City B. 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 psychologist suggested waiting before doing the psychological evaluation. The Court entrusted the children to Ms. D specifically and ordered a psychological evaluation if necessary. [ 18 ] On May 30, 2014 , the psychological evaluation report was signed by Dr. Joseph Beltempo. This report revealed that X already met a psychologist in City C, but only once and no follow-up was offered after. The DYP worker was supposed to check if there are some concerns regarding a possible alcohol consumption by the mother during her pregnancy. It also revealed that X was the victim from sexual abuses from other youths.

The psychologist recommends: - A reference to a child psychologist or counsellor to address therapeutically issues and traumas; - Psychological therapy using cognitive restructuring approach; - To include Y from time to time to the sessions;

- To address the insecure attachment issues to a trained therapist with the participation of the foster family. [ 19 ] 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. [ 20 ] 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 he 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. E until he reaches his 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. [ 21 ] On October 16, 2015 , the Court was seized with a provisional motion and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 22 ] On October 10, 2015 , X’s situation was reviewed and the evidence showed that he had serious behavioural issues (acting out, stealing, not respecting the rules, not attending school regularly).

He displayed suicidal ideation which brings him to be placed in the isolation room. As the foster family gave up, he was entrusted to a more structure foster family, but he did not respect the rules either. He was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. The father was detained, but called his son very regularly. The grandmother frequently travelled from City C to City B, and did not know where she would like to live. She had consumption issues and her spouse also.

The Court asked to make serious verification before entrusting X to a foster family, because he has very special needs and the new foster family will have to be totally informed about the situation, to make sure the placement would be a success. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration to a foster family or a significant person, and ordered health care services such as psychological follow-up until August 18, 2016. [ 23 ] On August 18, 2016 , X was 13 years old.

He generally improved his situation in a rehabilitation centre, but as he committed sexual assault in the unit, he was transferred in City D in May 2016, for a while and came back in City C Group home on July 24, 2016. A foster family, the one of Ms. C, was found for a future reintegration. X worked on his difficulties and showed that he was able to respect the rules. The father was recently released and was still not in position to have his son under his care. The grandmother on her side did not have her own place to stay.

The Court maintained X in a rehabilitation centre and ordered a reintegration in a foster family within a delay of three months, knowing that it would be the one of Ms. C. [ 24 ] On November 8, 2016 , the Court was seized with a provisional motion and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 25 ] On January 23, 2017 , the Court revised the file as Ms. C who engaged herself to foster X, renounce to do so. The father’s situation gets better and collaborated well. X was going to school. He was doing well at the rehabilitation centre.

The father was still living at his brother’s place and worked hard to address his issues, but was still struggling with an alcohol addiction. X was taking medication for his depression, but the Court noted that the inappropriate sexual behaviour was not addressed. The Court entrusted the adolescent to the father and ordered the services of an external educator until deemed necessary. [ 26 ] On January 30, 2018 , the situation was still good at school and at the father’s place, but X’s behaviour was still problematic. He committed some thefts.

In October 2017, someone entered in the house and threatened to kill the father. Immediately, X was entrusted to a foster family for the weekend. The father continued to reduce his alcohol consumption, collaborated well and was still waiting for his own house. At the time of the hearing, the father was detained and X was still at his uncle’s place. As the maternal grandmother was no more implicated, the Court withdrawn the authorization under

section 81 of the YPA. Services of an external educator was provided to the family. The Court maintained the adolescent under the father’s care and order that the service of an external educator was provided as long as deemed necessary, the whole until the end of January 2019. Facts [ 27 ] The evidence reveals that the father was detained until September 20, 2018. He made arrangements with family members to take care of X during that time. Sadly, the situation of the adolescent get worse during that period. [ 28 ] Many people from the community reported that X was begging for money and food and looked dirty.

He also lost his job at the grocery store as he was caught stealing. [ 29 ] At the beginning of 2018, X had a poor attendance at school, a lack of motivation and slept during classes. Doing so, he had to repeat his secondary 2.

For the school year 2018-2019, X was attending half of the time and was frequently around the school grounds instead of being in the classroom. [ 30 ] Regarding the schooling situation, the revision report writer mentions: […] Due to X’s cognitive delays and learning disabilities, many specialists in school are providing X with follow-up, but the situation is not improving because X is not pulling any effort.

His teacher also said that X is not a problematic kid, but he is academically not interested at all. [ 31 ] It’s also reported that X, despite his charming attitude, could sometime show aggressive behaviour and smoking cannabis. [ 32 ] Regarding his health, it was noted that he lost weight this year. He was seen by the doctor, and he had a low iron level. He was prescribed with iron supplements, but X did not buy it. When released, the father bought it for his son. In April 2018, he suffered from a fractured arm at school.

He had to be medevaced to City B and stayed there for three days. [ 33 ] The father was still working hard to reduce his alcohol consumption and to have his own house. He really wants to have his own house to take care of his children, X and Y. [ 34 ] The DYP was informed by the school that X would consume cannabis during the weekend. Also, X is the victim of bullying at

school and it’s actually very difficult for him. A placement in another village could help him because he would be in another school. [ 35 ] The DYP worker confirms that X does not receive a psychological follow-up for many years. He could receive support from a social worker at school if he wants. Ms. [Social Worker 1] considers that X would benefit from psychological support. She was not aware that he had to take pills for depression in the past. It would be important to do a follow-up if it’s still needed.

Analysis [ 36 ] The desire of the father is still very strong to have his children with him, and he is sure that the family situation will improve a soon as he has his own house. Sadly, for now the situation of the father, despite all his efforts, remains very fragile and uncertain. [ 37 ] During that time, X is suffering from negligence by the family members who are supposed to take care of him while the father was detained. He is suffering the consequences of the lack of supervision and the lack of involvement.

He had difficulties at school, and no one in the family is taking care of this situation. [ 38 ] It’s obvious that X can’t stay with his father, as he is in trouble and will probably be detained again shortly. He can’t stay neither with his uncle considering the many reports of negligence received.

X waits for many years to live with his father, but for another time, he has to be entrusted to a foster family. [ 39 ] Even if he will be placed, the Court insists on the importance to maintain contact with his sister Y, with whom he has a very close relation and if possible with Z who is fostered in City E. [ 40 ] The evidence shows that the services needed by X were not provided during a few years. The previous decisions ordered a psychological follow-up, but it was not done.

That being said, it was not necessary to read those decisions to realize that with such a difficult childhood, professional services would be needed. We would probably not be in such a situation today if X would have received the appropriate tools, and if his traumas would have been addressed. [ 41 ] The DYP was aware of the situation as he is involved for more than eight years, and detailed recommendations were made by Dr. Beltempo in May 2014.

It’s true to say that the recommended services do not exist in the North, but that is not an excuse as the DYP has the obligation to provide the services in a way to put an end to the situation in which the child is in danger.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 42 ] GRANTS the application; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a possible reintegration with the father if the situation allows it; [ 45 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the foster family be an [origin A] one in the North, but not in City C; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the father report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures he applies in his own regard or in his youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which his security and development are in danger; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy on a daily basis ; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the youth and the foster family receive the services of an external educator for as long as judged necessary; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the youth be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to their terms, modalities and frequency; [ 52 ] ORDERS that X receive all specific health cares and health services required by his situation, notably a psychological assessment as soon as possible, and that all the recommendations made by the psychologist be followed, including any other evaluations he or she could recommend; [ 53 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 54 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 55 ] RECOMMENDS the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to make an investigation in this situation; [ 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 January 31, 2020.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 16, 2019