2019 QCCQ 14840, 2019 QCCQ 14840

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911149 2019 QCCQ 14840 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002133-178 DATE: November 19, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 23, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 2, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2008.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until October 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP changes the previous recommendation and submits that the situation would allow to return X to her mother’s care with services until June 30, 2020. [ 3 ] The child has one sister (Y, 2 and a half years old) and the Court is also seized with her situation. Position of the parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Desmarais Grégoire.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] X, who is 11 years old, is present and represented by Me Migué. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 6 ] The family situation is known from the DYP since August 2014. [ 7 ] On November 22, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 9 years old. The evidence revealed that the house was very dirty and the children were left without proper supervision.

X did not attend school regularly and had to repeat her school year. The mother had alcohol consumption issues which brought the police to intervene. X had not had a health card for two years. In November 2016, the mother signed voluntary measures and the child was maintained under her care. In August 2017, the mother left the village for a few days and entrusted her children to her sister, who also had alcohol consumption issues and who had no money to feed the children.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family, but authorized a reintegration after six months if the situation allowed it. The Court also ordered that the services of an external educator be provided, the whole until October 31, 2019. [ 8 ] On October 2, 2018 , the evidence revealed that the mother was involved in a violent relationship with B, registered as a sex offender. X was transferred from one foster family to another on multiple occasions (see the list below).

On July 26, 2018, the mother was medevaced to Town B for very serious injuries and multiple fractures ( fracture of the mandible and the fixation; multiple fractures of the ribs; fracture of the lumbar vertebrae L1, L2 and L3; thrombosis of the left renal vein; laceration behind the left ear; massive bruising to the thorax, back, thighs, and arms ) following an assault from her boyfriend. Since then, the mother spent most of her time between Town B and Toronto. She is pressured by her boyfriend and his family to drop the charges. The Court maintained the child in a foster family until October 31, 2019.

The Court also ordered that, if there was a need to move the child from her current foster family to another, the DYP should file the assessment that would be made concerning her next foster family.

[ 9 ] On October 22, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered, X was maintained under her mother’s care while Y was maintained in a foster family. The contacts bet-ween X and B were prohibited until he clarifies his status as the father of the children. Facts [ 10 ] According to the previous decisions and the evidence provided, the child X was entrusted to the following foster families.

Considering the number of moves, the Court considers it necessary to make the following list: Period Foster parents Village Reason of transfer Period covered by the decision rendered on October 2, 2018 November 22, 2017, for one month D The foster family gave up. From December 2017 to January 19, 2018 unknown From January 19, to February 15, 2018 E From February 15 to March 5, 2018 At the mother’s place under the care of F Town A F gave up From March 5 to April 5, 2018 E From April 5 to April 25, 2018 F Town A The foster mother tried to commit suicide.

From April 25 to May 25, 2018 E The foster mother brought the child back to her mother in the middle of the night From May 25 to July 21, 2018 unknown From July 21 to September 28, 2018 G Town D The foster family became overwhelmed From September 28 to October 8, 2018 H Town A Alcohol consumption and conjugal issues Period covered by the actual revision October 6 to October 8, 2018 I Emergency foster family only October 9 to November 6, 2018 G Town D The foster mother left the community for medical reasons November 6 to December 17 J, sister Town A The house was messy.

X did not attend school and the fos-ter mother had left the village without notifying the DYP, lea-ving the child alone at home. December 17, 2018 to 2 nd week of January, 2019 F Town A The foster mother only accepted for a short period 2 nd week of January to end of March 2019 H Town D Medical reasons April 2019 3 other different foster families No one accepted a child for a long- term period. May 2019 to 8 October, 2019 I Town D The foster mother sent the child back to a family member in Town A.

October 8 to October 22, 2019 Aunt and the mother Town A October 22 to today Mother Following provisional measures [ 11 ] On October 15, 2018, the mother disclosed having been manipulated by her boyfriend on many aspects, namely physically, emotionally, and financially. She asked to enter the woman’s shelter in Town D. Everything was organized and she left as planned, but the same week, she came back and returned with Mr. B. She informed the DYP worker that she was pregnant with her fifth child. [ 12 ] On October 6, 2018, the mother arrived at the DYP offices in a panic. She had been beaten up by Mr.

B, and she asked for a ride to go to the airport. The police was called, but she did not press charges. [ 13 ] In December, she was beaten again for a period of three hours before being able to escape. The medical team confirmed that the fetus was not endangered. The mother was sent to the woman’s shelter in Town D. [ 14 ] On January 4, 2019, X was seen with her mother and Mr. B. The same day, a foster family was identified in Town D. [ 15 ] On January 10, the mother was beaten again and went to the Social Services to get help. Mr. B was detained, and since then, has been sentenced.

The end of his jail sentence is planned for July 2020.

[ 16 ] On May 5, 2019, the mother gave birth in Town B. Due to complications, she was in a coma for two weeks and when she regained consciousness, she was fragile, she did not eat, and she had hallucinations. The mother was able to come back in her community on July 11, 2019. The baby was removed from her care at birth and entrusted to a foster family down South. [ 17 ] At the end of July, the mother visited X in Town D. The visit went well. [ 18 ] X came home for a visit in March 2019. The visit went well. Mr.

B was detained at that time. [ 19 ] As mentioned, X was entrusted to a foster family in Town D from May to October. The foster mother sent X back in Town A without notifying the DYP. Upon her arrival, X disclosed that she had been the victim of sexual gestures from the oldest son of the foster mother. The police was called, a report was made and the investigation is still in progress, but contact between X and this young man are prohibited. [ 20 ] X is now living in Town A and goes to her mother’s place as often as she can. [ 21 ] The mother currently lives alone in her house with one of her adult daughters.

She does not work and is home every day. The house is always very clean. [ 22 ] The DYP worker ignores if, during the last school year (2018-2019), X attended school regularly, but he doubts it because of the multiple changes in her foster families and of her moving from one village to another. [ 23 ] This year, she is attending school regularly. [ 24 ] Currently, X does not benefit from any follow-up, and neither did she receive any help coping with her multiple transfers.

The DYP worker knows that she could obtain help from the school counsellor if she wishes to do so, but no contact was initiated between them to invite X to benefit from this service. [ 25 ] In the last order, Justice Beauchemin ordered that, if there was a need to move the child from her current foster family to another, the DYP has to file the assessment that would have been made concerning her next foster family. The Court asked the DYP if those assessments were made.

He answered that X was never entrusted long enough in the same foster family to give the DYP time to assess those families. [ 26 ] Clarifying the situation, he confirmed that the family in which X had been entrusted had never been accredited, and because of it, they were never considered a “foster family” according to the law. [ 27 ] The mother told the DYP that she is ambivalent regarding her relationship with Mr. B. She is not sure she will be able to put an end to the relationship despite the multiple serious violent events. [ 28 ] Mr. B was met in Town B on September 2, 2019.

He plans to go back to Town A and to start working again in order to provide for his family. Analysis [ 29 ] The situation of the child remains endangered because of her instability and the violent conjugal relationship of the mother. [ 30 ] The Court is very concerned by the lack of follow-up and the lack of preoccupation from the DYP to ensure the child’s stability.

She was moved multiple times without being prepared to do so, despite the previous order rendered, which already raised concerns on this aspect. [ 31 ] Moreover, despite the Court order again, the child was not entrusted to a foster family according to the law,

section 91 j), but was entrusted to other people, under

section 91 e). [ 32 ] Because of the multiple moves, those families were not evaluated even though X was already entrusted to them. The evaluation has to be done prior to entrusting a child, not after, nor should it not be done if the child does not stay long enough at that place. [ 33 ] The DYP worker recognizes that those moves increased the traumas she already suffered from because of her childhood. Despite this acknowledgment, no services were provided to her.

The DYP only made sure that the school offered follow-ups, but no steps were taken to ensure that X was aware of the service and that she benefited from it. [ 34 ] Because of the lack of stability, the lack of services to support the child in all the changes she had to face, and the non-respect of the previous order, the Court declares that the rights of the child have been wronged by the DYP. [ 35 ] Considering the situation and considering the positive comments regarding the mother, as for now, she is the only person able to provide for and to care for her daughter.

That being said, she can resume the care of her daughter only at the strict exclusion of Mr. B. [ 36 ] Currently, he is detained and there is no choice to be made in that regard, but when he is released, the mother has to make a clear choice between keeping her daughter at home or having Mr. B back at home, knowing that X will have to be entrusted back to a foster family if she elects the later.

The mother will have the opportunity to demonstrate that she is able to prioritize her children. [ 37 ] As corrective measures for the wronged rights, the Court ordered that the child and the mother benefit from services provided by an external educator at least once every two weeks. Unfortunately, the DYP lawyer informed the Court that this service does not exist in the village of Town A. [ 38 ] For the Court, this is more evidence that the Inuk children do not have the same rights as other children in the province of Quebec.

The Court cannot renounce to ordering corrective measures because another right would then be wronged.

[ 39 ] While doing so, the Court allows a period of two months for the DYP to find an external educator, and in the meanwhile, the Court orders that a close follow-up be provided by the DYP worker. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the application; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2008, are still endangered; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the rights of the child have been wronged; [ 43 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to her mother at the strict exclusion of Mr.

B; [ 44 ] ORDERS that X receive help from Social Services or a school counsellor regarding the sexual abuse she was a victim of; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 46 ] As corrective measure, ORDERS that the mother receive the service of an external educator at least once every two weeks until the end of the present measures, starting within the next two months, and before then, ORDERS that the Youth Protection worker provide a follow-up at the same frequency; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 48 ] ORDERS that X attend a school on a daily basis; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober while in the presence of the child; [ 50 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through Social Services concerning her abusive relationship; [ 51 ] ORDERS the mother not put the child in contact with Mr.

B; [ 52 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the mother’s domicile and ORDERS that those unannounced visits be increased after B’s release from jail; [ 53 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the information from Social Services regarding the mother’s attendance, collaboration and objectives worked on in her follow-up; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the siblings be favoured and organized; [ 55 ] ORDERS that at least one contact between X and her sister Emma, take place within the next three months; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the mother; [ 57 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 58 ] INVITES the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to make further investigation and to set any relevant recommendations; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 60 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the child Me Ulisce Desmarais Grégoire, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 19, 2019