2021 QCCQ 12961, 2021 QCCQ 12961

Protection de la jeunesse — 217177 2021 QCCQ 12961 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000104-168 DATE: September 27, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant And X, born on [...], 2011 Child And A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, ch.

P-34.1 CQLR ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits an application for the extension of the placement of X, 9 years old. [ 2 ] The mother is not present for the hearing, but has mandated Mtre. Marie-Michelle Grenier to act on her behalf.

She agrees with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection. Mtre. Yan Massé acts on behalf of the child on a legal mandate and Mtre. Adelia Ferreira for the applicant. [ 3 ] X has been living in foster families since June 2016. To this day, the Director of Youth Protection has never been able to secure a life plan for the child.

She moved from foster familie to other faster families a few times when she was in [Community A]. [ 4 ] As the extended family of X had problematic behaviours toward the foster families, the child was moved to [Community B]. [ 5 ] The Applicant is the Social Worker in charge of the file since 2016. [ 6 ] As the child is currently living in [Community B], another Social Worker was appointed in addition to Mrs. [Social Worker 1].

The problem is that there is no communication between the two, so the requests made by Mrs. [Social Worker 1] remained unanswered by the [Community B] DYP office. [ 7 ] The child has developed attachment issues and also has disturbing behaviours at times saying that she sees objects flying. [ 8 ] In the last judgment, judge Leduc wrote: “The child needs to be stabilized and the Director must consider an age of majority placement.” [ 9 ] Unfortunately, since then the child was moved to a new foster family. [ 10 ] The judge also ordered to provide the child with a psychological follow-up for the duration required by the psychologist.

Mrs. [Social Worker 1], the Applicant, testified that she asked the Worker in [Community B] to make a referral, but she never got an answer or a phone call from the [Community B] office. It has been a year and nothing has been done in order to help this child. This is unacceptable. The Applicant should have alerted the Director of Youth Protection of this situation. In the meantime, the child is left without appropriate services.

[ 11 ] The mother last saw the child at the beginning of the year 2021. She is not consistent with exercising access rights or being in touch by any means with her daughter. [ 12 ] She promised the child that they would see each other at Christmas in [Community A], but it never happened. [ 13 ] The mother did not take any steps in order to solve her issues. She continues to be unstable as she often moves from place to place.

She is currently in [Town A]. [ 14 ] The mother does not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, does not inform the Worker of her changes of address nor does she provide a means to reach her. [ 15 ] The mother agrees with the placement of the child acknowledging that she is unable to resume the care of X. [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection must take action in order to secure a life plan for this child before it is too late. She is developing attachment issues.

How can she trust adults and bond with them if each time they ask to let her go? [ 17 ] Adapted services must be provided to this child immediately as she has already waited too long to have her needs met adequately. [ 18 ] One of the problems here is that there is no adult exercising a right of surveillance over what the DYP is doing with this child.

Only the Court can denounce the situation, but it has to wait to be seized with an application. [ 19 ] It is why the current judgment will be sent to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to be sure that someone will exercise surveillance over the services that must be provided to X.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] EXTENDS the previous Court order; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2011, are still endangered; [ 23 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in a foster family for a period of 6 months; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to secure a life plan for this child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that contact between the mother and X be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the presence of a third party and that these access rights be established taking only into account the best interest of the child; [ 26 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the extended family be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and the level of supervision; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child receive all services required by her situation: an ADHD assessment, a therapist to work with attachment issues (art therapy), a professional to help her with her schooling; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be assessed by a psychologist within 60 days and that all recommendations made by the professional be followed in the best delays; [ 29 ] ORDERS the mother to report to the Director of Youth Protection every two weeks to inform of her current situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to X, the mother and the foster family for a period of 6 months; [ 31 ] ORDERS the clerk of the court to notify this judgment to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse ; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Adelia Ferreira Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Legal Aid Lawyer for the child

Mtre. Marie-Michelle Grenier André Levasseur Avocats Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: September 27, 2021