2018 QCCQ 13756, 2018 QCCQ 13756

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810801 2018 QCCQ 13756 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000290-095 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [SOCIA WORKER 1] & [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, deceased ______________________________________________________________________ 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 [...], 2002.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre, strongly recommended that he be transferred to the [Group A] as soon as possible, followed by a reintegration with his mother at the end of the school year, if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to extend the decision, to entrust the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration with the mother, if the situation allows it until September 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her son are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The adolescent is present and represented by Me Léonard. He agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 5 ] On August 8, 2009 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. At that time, the parents displayed alcohol consumption problem. X was entrusted to a foster home since June 22, 2009, following an emergency hearing. Justice Jacques R.

Roy, declared the situation and development in danger and entrusted the child to a foster home until August 11, 2010. [ 6 ] On September 28, 2010 , the DYP asked the Court to revise the decision. The evidence showed that, two days after the previous hearing, the parents were arrested and detained. The father completed Isuarsivik program but relapsed two weeks after. The mother also started a therapy but left before the end. Since the last hearing the police intervened and arrested the parents on fourteen occasions. No visits were organized because of the intoxication of the parents.

They did not collaborate with the Youth Protection services. The Court maintained the security and development in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family where he used to spend a lot of time. The Court also orders that a psychological evaluation of the child be performed. [ 7 ] On November 8, 2010 , the psychological report was issued. Dr.

Beltempo’s recommendations are the following: […] Perhaps the foster parents should avoid overprotecting him and should help him to learn to take charge of himself and to overcome feelings of anxiety and helplessness. […] His intelligence potential is in the low-average range and the discrepancies in learning suggest a combination of ADHD, learning disabilities (with reversals) and several sings of FASD. Repetitive techniques which require constant and structured supervision in class and at home are indicated.

Auditory deficits indicate that visual modes of reminders are necessary. […] He seems to be open to counselling and this is an option that should be considered. […] Specifically he has auditory short term memory problems, which lead to memory problems and there are strategies of repetition and rehearsal which Foster Parents should use

with him as well as the school administrators. […] I recommend that X be referred to a Pediatrician with a subspecialty in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and for possible medication therapy sings consistent with attentional deficit disorder . In addition, within one year , he should receive a psychoeducational assessment within the school, to determine whether there have been any changes in intellectual and academic functioning. […] We would recommend that behavioral approaches should be used in the home and school, for contingency positive reinforcement .

Specific visual re-educational techniques will be useful in helping him compensate for his auditory memory deficits which would need to be coordinated between the Foster parents and the school teachers. [ 8 ] On April 5, 2011 , Justice McKenna was seized of the revision. The situation of the father was the same. At that time, he was detained, he did not seek any services and did not feel responsible for X. Before the father’s incarceration, some access were cancelled because of the intoxication of the parents but some access took place without supervision. X was always very happy to see his parents.

The mother completed a therapy. Her situation was getting better even if the conjugal relation was still fragile. Since the father is detained, the mother’s collaboration was better. X was entrusted 30 months since the beginning of the intervention including 10 months with Ms. C. He was doing very well with her. The Court entrusted X to Ms.

C until the age of majority and order a psychological follow- up and a psychoeducational assessment for the development of his intellectual and academic functioning. [ 9 ] On March 13, 2012 , a provisional measure was rendered and X was entrusted to a specialized Group Home which offers a close supervision. [ 10 ] On April 4, 2012 , Justice Roy, was seized of the revision and the evidence revealed that X was entrusted to 27 foster families since the last 3 years. The last one, Ms. C was not able to provide a structural environment and was overwhelmed by the situation.

Since he is in a Group Home, X was doing better. The Court entrusted him in a Group Home for 6 months with a reintegration in a foster family. The Court also ordered an evaluation from a psychiatrist and that the recommendations be followed. [ 11 ] On October 2, 2012 , Justice Bédard revised the situation. X was still at the Group Home and was doing well. The situation of the parents did not improve.

The Court maintained the placement at the Group Home for a period of three months followed by a reintegration in a foster family for a total of six months. [ 12 ] On April 4, 2013 , Justice Roy was seized of the revision. X entrusted a foster family as ordered by Justice Bédard and he was doing well. X expressed the wish to stay there. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for 12 months and recommended that he be entrusted in the same foster family. [ 13 ] On March 20, 2014 , Justice Gagnon revised the situation.

X did well in his foster family until September 2013, when the behavioural disturbances reappeared and the foster family gave up. He was entrusted in another one which was closed few weeks after, for an unknown reason. He recently entrusted Ms. D’s house, and everything seemed to go well. This was the 30 th foster home where he was entrusted to. The father seemed to be more concerned by his son and ready to make changes in his life. The visits between him and his son went well. The Court entrusted X to the foster family of Ms.

D until August 8, 2014, and explained that it’s in the interest of X to specify the foster family to avoid a change without submitting the situation to the Court. [ 14 ] On December 18, 2014 , the evidence showed that the situation of the father evolved a lot, he was very proud and he says being ready to have his son back. X misbehaved at Ms. D’s place. He ran away, he did not listen to the rules and he skipped school.

The Court entrusted X to his father with the services of an external educator and Youth Protection follow-up until December 18, 2015. [ 15 ] On February 18, 2016 , the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre because he displayed behavioural disturbances. He consumed drugs and stayed outside late. He did not respect his father’s authority and did not attend school. The Court also orders a reintegration, the whole until June 15, 2016. [ 16 ] On June 13, 2016 , Justice Gravel prolonged the placement at the rehabilitation centre because even if X was doing better, he still needed services and structure.

The Court authorizes the reintegration during the summer and services until March 31, 2017. [ 17 ] On January 24, 2017 , the DYP asked for a revision. While X was reintegrated to his father, his behaviour was getting worse. The father still had difficulty to maintain his sobriety. Considering that X was generally doing well in a well-structured environment, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a progressive reintegration to a foster family until January 31, 2018. [ 18 ] On January 30, 2018 , Justice Lecompte was seized of the situation. X was still at the rehabilitation centre.

His father passed away in June 2017. The mother seemed to make some changes in her life, and the visits at her place went well. She was collaborative with the Youth Protection services. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre and recommended the centre located in Town A with a reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it, the whole until November 30, 2018. Facts [ 19 ] X is now 16 years old. The evidence shows that X is able to behave well in a well-structured environment. Since the last Court order, he stayed at the Group Home in Town B.

He is going to school regularly and despite the learning difficulties raised in the past, he is doing well. The situation is getting worse when he comes to Town A to visit his family. [ 20 ] The DYP worker testifies that on March 6, 2018, X stole more than $10,000 from an alleged drug dealer. The mother and the adolescent deny this fact. This event raises a lot of concerns regarding the safety of X. [ 21 ] In the same week, the adolescent admits having pushed and injuring a DYP worker while being escorted at the airport. An argument also occurred between X and a representative of [Company A].

X was found on the tarmac airport, and a police intervention was necessary. The employer refused X on the flight and banned him from the company. [ 22 ] Following this event, and after finding a flight on First Air, X was entrusted to an intensive unit in Town C for 30 days rather than going to Town B.

[ 23 ] He went back to his Group Home on beginning of April 2018. Few days later, his sister committed suicide. [ 24 ] On September 9, the DYP worker was informed that X bit up three girls on his free time. On September 18, X was entrusted to A’s rehabilitation centre in Town C. [ 25 ] The mother admits having an alcohol consumption problem and that the police intervened on several occasions at her place because she was intoxicated. She recognizes having a lot of difficulties coping with her daughter’s lost.

She reduced her alcohol consumption after the death of her daughter. [ 26 ] The mother wishes to go to a treatment centre in Town D. She ever went there and she appreciated it. She confirms having the form at home and having the intention to file it. She meets with a social worker at the CLCS and appreciated her help. This social worker was absent for family reasons for few weeks, so the mother did not receive any help during that time. Since she is back, the mother meets her every week. [ 27 ] The mother would like to see a psychologist.

She asked twice for a reference, but she has no appointment yet. [ 28 ] The mother considers that she collaborates well with the DYP. She says she frequently goes to the DYP’s office but unfortunately the worker in charge changes quite every week. She ever met with the supervisor, but she does not remind the name. She tries to call sometimes, but it’s always the answering machine. [ 29 ] On his side, the DYP worker considers that the mother is passive and does not work hard enough to resolve her alcohol consumption problem.

He explains that for two weeks she has a form to file out to register herself into a therapy. This form was given by the Social Services and he does not understand why it’s still not completed. [ 30 ] Questioned about the frequency of the follow-up offered by the DYP, the worker explains that the mother was met but not by him. He is aware that meetings were scheduled between the CLSC, the DYP and the mother to evaluate the possibility of therapy, but for many reasons, the meetings never occurred.

He is aware that the mother met with the Social Services by herself and she is motivated but he does not know the frequency. [ 31 ] Regarding the contacts suggested between X and his mother, no contacts occurred since March 2018. The worker considers important to organize contacts between them to maintain the bonds and to allow X to apply the technic he learned. [ 32 ] Questioned by the Court regarding the medical follow-up received by X, the DYP worker answers that X never benefit from a follow-up with a pediatrician to evaluate a possible FASD nor a medication for ADHD as it was recommended by Dr.

Beltempo in 2010, while X was eight years old. To his knowledge, the medication was not taken because X refused it. [ 33 ] The worker also answers that X never benefited from the psychological follow-up recommended by Dr. Beltempo (2010) and order by Justice McKenna (2011) nor from psychoeducational assessment also recommended by Dr. Beltempo and ordered by Justice McKenna. [ 34 ] It is the same thing for the evaluation from a psychiatrist, and the follow-up ordered by Justice Roy in 2012.

Those services were never provided. [ 35 ] The DYP worker admits that he was not aware of those recommendations and Court orders. He did not read the file before coming at the court, and he is not the worker in charge of X’s file, so he is not able to give reason for this lake of service. Analysis [ 36 ] The evidence shows that the mother is taking steps to resolve her alcohol consumption issues. She is collaborating with the Social Services, and the process is going on to integrate a therapy centre.

She has the motivation but considering the events she recently lived, she needs some more time. [ 37 ] For many years, X displays behavioural disturbances. He participated in an evaluation, and recommendations were made by the psychologist eight years ago. For unknown reason no follow-up was done and services were not provided to X. His situation continued to deteriorate and his behavioural disturbances are so important that he need rehabilitation services and moved from one rehabilitation centre to another one.

If the services have been provided as requested, we are allowed to suppose that X could evolve today with his family or at least in a foster family. [ 38 ] His family situation is a tragedy. His father passed away in 2017, his sister committed suicide in 2018, his brother is entrusted to a foster family in [province A] until he reaches his majority and X, after being entrusted in 30 foster families, was entrusted in rehabilitation centres with transfers from Town B to Town C. [ 39 ] The mother is living the same tragedy to which we should add the traumas she suffers from her childhood.

Today, the DYP worker describes her as “quite passive” because she did not file the form she received two weeks ago. Is there any mother living the same tragedy who could find the energy to make it? Is it possible to consider all the circumstances? How can we reproach to the mother not to have completed a form in two weeks while the DYP did not offer services to X in height years? [ 40 ] The Court considers that the DYP has a responsibility in the actual situation of X and will asks the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la jeunesse to do an investigation in this file.

X, even if he is 16 years old, agrees to receive the services he did not receive before and recognizes it would be in his best interest. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS this application;

[ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a reintegration with his mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of X be performed and recommendations be followed including any other evaluation which could be recommended within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [ 45 ] ORDERS that X benefit from a follow-up with a pediatrician and that ADHD be re-evaluated and all recommendations be followed, including medication within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [ 46 ] ORDERS that X be evaluated to determine if he suffers from a FASD and that all recommendations be followed within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a psychoeducational assessment of X be performed and recommendations be followed within a delay of three months following the writing decision; [ 48 ] ORDERS that all the evaluations ordered by the Court be filed in the court’s record, upon receipt; [ 49 ] ORDERS that all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation receive a complete copy of his medical file including a copy of the psychological assessment made in November 2010, a complete copy of his schooling file and a copy of this present decision; [ 50 ] AUTHORIZES all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation to have access to any other documents they consider relevant; [ 51 ] AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in X’s situation to exchange information between them and with the Director of Youth Protection regarding the diagnostics, the recommendations and the involvement in the follow-ups; [ 52 ] ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by his situation; [ 53 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to assist the mother to obtain a reference to see a psychologist if she still wishes it; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the mother reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are in danger; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a regular basis or any other place of learning; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, and the mother receive the services of an external educator once in the mother’s care; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the adolescent; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to address her alcohol consumption issue through Social Services or AA meetings; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent, and the mother, are supervised and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his mother; [ 62 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 63 ] 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; [ 64 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 65 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 66 ] THE WHOLE until April 18, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 31, 2018