2019 QCCQ 14812, 2019 QCCQ 14812

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910447 2019 QCCQ 14812 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000560-141 DATE: August 8, 2019 (written judgment rendered on November 27, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased 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 the decision rendered on October 29, 2018, regarding X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allowed it, until April 18, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends entrusting the youth under the care of Ms. B, until January 18, 2022.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] X, who is 15 years old, is present and represented by Me Boudreau. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 4 ] The Court reproduces the history of the situation as it was drawn by the undersigned in the previous decision. [ 5 ] It’s important to note that, even after being adopted by Ms. A (her maternal grandmother), X was taken care of by her biological mother, Ms. C, while the adoptive mother moved to Town A for medical reasons (dialysis) [1] . [ 6 ] On November 11, 2008 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court.

C was taking care of X and her three siblings. C was overwhelmed with her parental responsibilities. It was revealed that when she was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, she was violent towards the children. She was not able to impose routine nor structure at home. As a result, X and her siblings missed school and daycare. They also suffered from a lack of food, clothes and hygiene.

The Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [2] and maintained her under C’s care for five months. [ 7 ] On August 26, 2009 , the Court noted that after an improvement, the situation of C got bad during the worker’s vacation. She was conscious of her difficulties and willing to resolve her issues. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period of three months with aid, counsel and assistance to the family, until the end of the school year, June 2010. [ 8 ] On June 9, 2010 , the evidence revealed that the placement was beneficial for X. She was doing very well at school.

C did not go to therapy, but as she was pregnant, she maintained her sobriety. C was involved in a violent conjugal relationship. The Court entrusted X to her biological mother, Ms. C for a period of six months. [ 9 ] On October 19, 2010 , C was still displaying alcohol consumption issues. She had been arrested for drinking and driving. She had left the children to a babysitter and left for Town A for a few days. At the time of the hearing, she was at Treatment Centre A. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period of six months. The DYP entrusted her to the foster home of Ms. D and Mr.

E in the region of Town B. [ 10 ] In November 2010 , the adoptive mother (

A) passed away after a long-term illness.

[ 11 ] On April 5, 2011 , the Court ratified a draft agreement and entrusted X to the same foster family until the end of the school year. Following these measures, the file was closed. [ 12 ] While X was living with her biological mother, C and her spouse, the DYP retained a few reports between November 2012 and June 2013 in regard to a risk of neglect, psychological ill-treatment and neglect with regard to basic physical needs. In August 2013, after the evaluation process, the DYP considered the situation of X endangered in regard to neglect (basic needs and supervision). [ 13 ] On August 15, 2013 , a voluntary measure was signed and X was entrusted to her biological mother (

C) for one year. [ 14 ] In October 2013 , the biological mother (

C) was detained. X and her siblings were entrusted to their aunt F. [ 15 ] On January 5, 2014 , the biological mother was released from detention, but she stayed to live in Town A. According to the DYP, she was homeless. [ 16 ] On March 21, 2014 , the aunt, F, also left for Town A, leaving X and her siblings to their uncle who suffered from a mental illness. [ 17 ] On March 24, 2014 , X was entrusted to a foster family under immediate protective measures which were extended afterwards. [ 18 ] On August 7, 2014 , the mother, C was still nowhere to be found.

X who was 10 years old, was entrusted to a foster family in Town A in June 2014. She knew that her mother was living in Town A and she was convinced that she had her own house. She wished to live with her. The Court declared that the security and development of X were endangered [3] and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 19 ] On September 15, 2015 , X had been in the foster family of Ms. B since the last Court order. The mother had no contact with her daughter nor with the DYP. The Court entrusted X to a foster family, namely Ms.

B until she reaches her majority. [ 20 ] On April 16, 2018 , the Court was seized with the revision of the situation. X ran away from her foster family and left with a man. She was found intoxicated, had to be hospitalized, and she was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre under provisional measures in February 2018. The evidence revealed that X was not feeling well in her foster family and that she needed more structure.

The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre and authorized the child’s reintegration in a foster family if the situation allowed it. [ 21 ] On October 29, 2018 , the evidence revealed that X had been entrusted to an intensive unit because, after a home visit, she said she was feeling homesick. Once there, she ran away and was found two weeks later, in a 38 years-old-man’s place. She declared having been physically and sexually assaulted by him. She was transferred to a locked unit for a while, and back in a regular rehabilitation centre.

Everything went well until July, when she tried to run away another time. She had suicidal ideation and was put on Level 2 suicide watch. The same day, she ran away with another youth. She was found a few hours after, and returned to Level 2 suicide watch until July 23, 2018. X was suffering from a high level of anxiety. Her intentions regarding her future are changing a lot. Sometimes, she would like to stay down South. Sometimes she would like to go back up North. X frequently expresses the desire to connect with her biological mother and with her culture.

She ran away in Town A with the objective to find her mother. [ 22 ] X has been entrusted to a rehabilitation centre since February 2018, and she moves from one unit to another one depending on her run away and her suicidal thoughts. The Court noted that nothing was done to help X address her identity crisis. During that time, while being under the responsibility of the DYP, she put herself at risk. The Court maintained X in a rehabilitation centre and ordered a reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible.

The Court ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed and recommendations be followed, that measures be taken to find the biological mother, and to prepare X to meet her. The Court also referred the file to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse for further investigation considering the lack of supervision and the lack of services. The measures were applicable until April 18, 2019. [ 23 ] On April 11, 2019 , as the file was not ready for revision, a provisional order was requested and the Court maintained the measures previously ordered.

Facts [ 24 ] Since the last order, X started a reintegration with Ms. B who remained very involved during all of the placement. X is doing very well. [ 25 ] Ms. B came in Town C for the Court to testify. She deeply loves X and she is very happy that she is back at home. Ms. B also fosters X’s cousin, who is also happy to be reunited with X. [ 26 ] Ms. B expresses her agreement that X travel to Town D to keep in contact with her family, and also for traditional activities offered in Town A. X will attend an alternative school, and during the summer, she will work at the day camp. [ 27 ] The main concern of Ms.

B is regarding the services she receives. A collaboration was requested to [Youth Centre A], but according to her, the worker has no knowledge of culture [in community A] and the services are not adapted at all to the situation. Ms. B would like to continue to work with [Social Worker 1] who has known X for many years and knows the family and the culture very well. [ 28 ] [Social Worker 1] explained that he is not working at the application of measures anymore, and is now working with the services of foster families, but he asked his supervisor to be authorized to continue to work in X’s file.

The decision was not made yet. [ 29 ] As the Court ordered it the last time, steps were taken to find the biological mother and to organize a meeting between X and her. It was supposed to be very difficult to track her down, but at the first attempt, she was found and a visit could take place with X. She was very happy, and X’s work on identity crisis can continue. Ms. B is involved in this process. She would like to support X and to welcome the mother at home when the situation will allow it.

[ 30 ] Regarding the psychological evaluation ordered, the situation was not the same. [Social Worker 1] admitted that it had been requested only in April 2019, at the time the file was scheduled for the revision. The Court expressed being disappointed and reiterated the importance to offer this service urgently. As the Court was making some comments, Ms. B intervened and explained that she already has X’s cousin followed by a psychologist, and she made steps for X to be met by the same one who already knows the reality of the family. Ms.

B shared the concerns of the Court and also considers that services have to be offered urgently. She made a commitment to take care of it once back in Town A. Analysis [ 31 ] As mentioned at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that the mother was found and that a visit was organized. For sure, this raised questions in the mind of X, but it also answered a lot of questions she previously had for a long time. This is a first step. [ 32 ] Another step would have been to provide, as requested, a psychological evaluation for X. With her background, it was urgent.

This should have been done without a Court order, but as it was not done, the Court ordered it. Despite that, despite the Court’s comments at the previous hearing, and despite the transmission of the decision to the CDPDJ, it is still not done. [ 33 ] The Court thanks Ms. B for her involvement with X. This hearing provided the opportunity to appreciate the very close relationship between X and her foster mother.

They were very happy to be reunited, and the Court is convinced that the match is perfect. [ 34 ] Considering all the instability in the life of X and the lack of service provided by the DYP, the minimum he could do now would be to maintain [Social Worker 1] as the worker in the file. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to Ms. B as a foster family until she reaches her majority; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth and the biological mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school, another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 40 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the biological mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol, drug and personal issues; [ 41 ] GRANTS the parental authority attributes to Ms.

B regarding consents pertaining to medical needs, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be informed of any decision taken about X; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, the biological mother and the extended family be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 44 ] ORDERS that X benefit of at least four contacts per year with her extended family in Town D, and the modalities will have to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health cares and services required by her situation, notably a psychological assessment and that all recommendations be followed including any other evaluation recommended by the psychologist; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth, the family and the foster family; [ 47 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that [Social Worker 1] stay in charge of X’s file; [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 49 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the youth

Date of hearing: August 8, 2019