2019 QCCQ 16002, 2019 QCCQ 16002

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910363 2019 QCCQ 16002 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000926-185 DATE: April 18, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 15, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 youth X, born on [...], 2003, are endangered under

section 38 (b) (1) iii., (b) (2) and (f) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court is also seized with an application for protection concerning the younger sister of the youth. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are absent and not represented. The Court, considering that they were duly served, received a subpoena to be present, decided not to come and the best interest of the youth, proceeds in their absence. [ 4 ] The youth, who is now 16 years old, is present and represented by Me Jennis. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures.

The youth’s lawyer asks for unannounced visits at home. Facts [ 5 ] The DYP alleges that X has serious behavioural issues as aggressiveness, suicidal ideation and not attending school. Her situation is known since February 2017, when it had been reported that she did not attend school. At that time, she was 14 years old. After evaluation, the DYP concluded that her security and development were not endangered. [ 6 ] In September 2018, her situation was reported following a violent event. The evening of September 11, while being intoxicated, X destroyed all the furniture at her sister’s place.

The police intervention was needed and when she saw them, she ran after them with a kitchen knife. X was arrested and detained at the YCJA room. [ 7 ] Once there, she tried to commit suicide as she just did a suicide pact with other youths. When she was released from the YCJA room, she was immediately hospitalized as she presented a high risk of suicide. [ 8 ] X had been seen by Dr. Larose, child psychiatrist, at that time. She recommended entrusting her to a rehabilitation centre. [ 9 ] The other doctors disagreed with this recommendation and considered that she could come back home with a safety net.

Because of that, the DYP entrusted her under her sister’s care after a meeting with the parents and obtaining their engagement to impose a safe structure to protect her. [ 10 ] X was met, she recognized not going to school for two years and she does not plan to go either. She stays at home to babysit the young children of the family.

[ 11 ] In October 2018, the mother was met and she said that X was supposed to start school soon. [ 12 ] The parents have alcohol consumption issues, and they do not demonstrate a lot of interest in their daughter's development. They were not present when she was detained nor when she tries to commit suicide, but they were present when she was discharges from the hospital and accepted to collaborate. [ 13 ] According to Dr.

Larose who met X in September, she has a very low self-esteem and it’s due to her not attendance at school. [ 14 ] On December 3, 2018, the evaluation report was finished and the DYP try to meet the parents to sign voluntary measures without success. [ 15 ] On January 30, 2019, the DYP worker met with the school’s principal to find a solution to facilitate X’s schooling.

X engaged herself to go to school. [ 16 ] Between the end of January and mid-February, the DYP came at her house few mornings to make sure she will go to school, but despite those attempts, she went only once. [ 17 ] According to the DYP worker, despite the absence of the parents and the aspects to be worked on, the parents collaborate well with the services. Moreover, many family members are very supportive as the sister Y who is 31 or 32 years old. [ 18 ] The DYP worker made a request for the service of an external educator, but this service is not started yet.

When it was suggested to him, if he considers that unannounced visits would be beneficial, he said yes because of the high frequency of consumption of the parents. [ 19 ] Questioned about the opportunity to request a psychological evaluation, the DYP worker answers that it could be an option, but only when X would be stabilized, meaning when she will go to school, have a routine and a healthy way of life. Once this objective done, he would like to evaluate if X will need a psychological evaluation.

According to the DYP worker, as the difficulties of X come from her non-attendance at school, this issue will be resolved by her attendance at school. Doing so, the main objective is to make her go to school. Analysis [ 20 ] X is not going to school for two years. She stays at home to take care of young children.

The parents did not take steps to insure her schooling as it’s helpful for them to have someone at home. [ 21 ] The DYP was also aware of the situation, but he considered, two years ago, that it was not enough to conclude that her security and her development were endangered when the schooling was mandatory. For how long a child should not go to school to see his situation endangered? [ 22 ] Both, parents and DYP have responsibility in this situation. The parents because they are the first responsible for the care, the maintenance, the education and the supervision of their children.

The DYP, because when parents do not assume their parental responsibility, he has to take steps to put an end to the situation in which a child is in danger, not to close the eyes on a problematic situation. [ 23 ] Even if she is not going to school for two years, the first concrete step was done only at the end of January 2019, when the DYP worker met the school with the parents and X to find a solution. And despite this meeting and the engagement, she went to school only once.

A certain intensity of intervention was seen for two weeks after this meeting, when the DYP went few mornings at home to convince X to go to school. But since that time, as before, nothing was done. [ 24 ] The DYP alleged numerous suicidal ideation and one suicidal attempt which one is admitted by X. But since September, there is still no external educator, and a psychological evaluation is not considered relevant. The Court considers it as a real emergency in this situation. [ 25 ] The lack of services in this file is obvious on many aspects: mental health issues, schooling, interventions with the parents, etc.

The DYP was very slow to react, and his intervention was not proper as to the seriousness of the situation. [ 26 ] The Court will recommend to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate in this file. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, are in danger under

section 38 (b) (1) iii., (b) (2) and (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with the parents; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy on a daily basis; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a psychological evaluation of the youth be performed within two months; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the recommendations of the psychologist be followed including any other evaluation he could suggest; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the entire X’s medical and schooling files;

[ 34 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a copy of the entire youth’s medical and schooling files to the psychologist to facilitate his work; [ 35 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that all recommendations set out by the psychologist concerning the schooling be communicated to the school and applied by the school; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of documents between all professionals working in the file; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive the services of an external educator immediately; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits at the parents’ home; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which her security and development are endangered; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the measures ordered by the Court; [ 41 ] ORDERS that youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 45 ] 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; [ 46 ] 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; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until February 29, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the child Date of hearing: April 18, 2019