2019 QCCQ 14832, 2019 QCCQ 14832

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911141 2019 QCCQ 14832 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-000963-063 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 [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] & [SOCIAL WORKER 2] , Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicants and A, deceased Mother and B , deceased Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review a decision rendered on March 21, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until April 30, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the youth in a foster family and recommends a placement in a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2020.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The youth is present by way of a videoconference and represented by Me Tommasel. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he agrees with the measures, including the psychological evaluation. History of the situation [ 4 ] On December 12, 2006 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. At that time, the father was detained. He did not consider himself the father of the child, and as a result was not concerned by X’s situation.

In March 2004 and in September 2005, the mother arrived at Social Services requesting that they take care of her child as she has no means to do so, and wanted to live in the community without her child. The child was entrusted to a foster family for six months under voluntary measures. X went back to his mother after the measures were expired, but nine months later, the mother made the same request again. X was entrusted to a foster family under voluntary measures for an additional year. When the measures came to term, the reintegration failed, and the mother left the community in June 2006.

She came back after around four months and asked to resume the care of her child, but her discourse was unclear. The Court noted that the mother was aware that she was incapable of taking care of her child and that she felt guilty because of it. The child was in a foster family and had developed strong bonds with them. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of twelve months. [ 5 ] On November 27, 2007 , the Court revised the situation.

The evidence revealed that the father was detained again and the mother did not see the child for the last two years. X was in the same foster family for two years and they have the desire to take care of him until he reaches his majority. He was part of their family. The Court entrusted the child until his majority and recommended the same foster family. [ 6 ] On April 7, 2016 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. The order was renewed on May 25, 2016.

[ 7 ] On June 15, 2016 , the Court reviewed the situation. X was then 13 years old. Both his parents had passed away; his mother had committed suicide. He was entrusted to his aunt, who also committed suicide. Since he was 2 years old, he had been entrusted to 45 different foster families. He displayed behavioural issues (stealing, sniffing gas, not respecting the rules, staying out late, and not attending school for one year). The grandmother was asked if she wanted visits, but she refused, saying that she could not handle his misbehaviour. The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre until May 31, 2017.

The Court ordered that X attend school and that he receives a follow-up with a child psychiatrist. The Court also granted certain attributes of parental authority to the DYP. [ 8 ] In July 2016 , Dr. Joseph Beltempo signed X’s psychological evaluation. He noted, in the reasons for the referral, that “an assessment was necessary to establish his level of functioning in order to provide the proper resources.” Dr.

Beltempo recalled the position of the child psychiatrist as follows: According to the referral, this young boy would need a psychological assessment to provide appropriate services in an environment that would support his strengths. It has been very difficult to work with this child. He needs access to more services than the Group Home has available. Specific concerns and motives of the psychological assessment. X is currently in a Group Home in Town A. He has been there for six weeks with little progress in his overall functioning.

X has been sniffing gasoline regularly since a young age and there are concerns regarding his cognitive function, language delay and developmental delay. In regard to his education, he needs special services that the Town A School does not provide. An assessment is necessary to establish his level of functioning in order to provide the proper resources. [ 9 ] Finally, Dr. Beltempo recommended: We are very concerned about this young boy.

I would suggest very strongly that he needs a higher level of structure with consistency and stability, and a social environment where he would address his deficiencies and provide an opportunity for growth. Secondly, I suggest that he be referred to psychiatry for possible depression and to rule out Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder . Given the long-standing problems with inhalants, gas sniffing in particular, we are witnessing a very, very fragile brain structure. If any more exposure to alcohol, drugs and inhalants, he will have irreversible cognitive effects.

X has intellectual disabilities to require a host of specialized services requiring supervision, educational rehabilitation. He could be referred to a specialized education system; if not available in the Great North then referral could possibly be made to Summit school in Town D. Lastly, I would strongly suggest that he be referred to NIMCHI a specialized treatment resource for inhalant abuse that is in Ontario. He may need that to support him from staying away from substances. [ 10 ] In November 2016 , Dr.

Beltempo reassessed X at the DYP request to determine if he would be ready for treatment for his inhalant addiction and other drugs problems as it was recommended in the previous evaluation. As the transfer from the A unit in Town B to the B rehabilitation centre was planned soon, the psychologist recommended an evaluation by a school psychologist to assess his actual academic performance so his remediation program to suit his level of potential and special needs could be adjusted. [ 11 ] For his inhalant addiction, Dr. Beltempo recommended a strong education program on substance use and abuse.

Regarding the treatment recommended as X was not “motivated to attend any specialized treatment program for solvents,” the psychologist recommended that “a multidisciplinary team (workers, foster family) be implemented to increase his motivation for change and perhaps attend a treatment centre. Also given his vulnerability cognitive state (memory and comprehension deficits) instructions should be repeated to ensure that he understands. Any further substance use including inhalants should be prohibited to him.” [ 12 ] On May 11, 2017 , the Court was seized with the revision. X was 14 years old.

After the last order, X was entrusted at the Group Home in Town A. He continued to display worrisome behaviours (aggressiveness, suicidal ideation, running away, and sniffing gasoline). Each time he ran away, the police intervention was needed to have him back. Because of his behaviour, he was entrusted to Center A in Town D and after being stabilized, in the Group home in Town C.

In January 2017, as the rehabilitation centre had to be closed for decontamination, X was entrusted to one of his aunts for a few weeks and attended school regularly, but the situation degenerated quickly to the point that the aunt gave up. The same bad behaviours resurfaced. Again, he was sent to Center A in Town D, and a few weeks after, to the Group Home in Town C when it reopened. The Court noted a very sad childhood without any attachment with any adult figure. The Court also reproduces the recommendations of Dr. Beltempo.

The Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre and ordered that he receive specific health care and services, notably a follow-up with a child psychiatrist. The Court recommended that the youth attend school in a specialized educational system and be referred to a specialized treatment resources for inhalant abuse and granted certain attributes of parental authority to the DYP. [ 13 ] On April 18, 2018 , X was 15 years old. The Court revised the situation. X had run away since the last order and during those running away, he consumed drugs. He was still aggressive and self-mutilated sometimes.

That being said, his behaviour generally improved. He was moved a few times from one structure to another one. He had contacts with his uncle, and a reintegration there could be possible in the future. The Court extended the decision rendered previously until April 30, 2019, and authorized a reintegration with his uncle if possible. The Court maintained the other previous orders. [ 14 ] On March 21, 2019 , the evidence revealed that, after being moved from one centre to another one again, a reintegration with his uncle took place in June 2018.

As events occurred at the uncle, X was entrusted to his paternal grandmother. He attended school regularly and he was looking for a job. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and took judicial notice that it would be the one of the paternal grandmother. The Court ordered the services of an external educator. [ 15 ] On September 11, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and the youth was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. Facts [ 16 ] After the last hearing, X was maintained at his paternal grandmother, Ms. C. [ 17 ] During summer 2019, he started receiving the services of an external educator.

As he would like to have a job, the educator help

him to find one at the hospital, and after that to make a budget with his salary. The external educator was available for a meeting once every two weeks, but X was not always present. When he was, he collaborated well. [ 18 ] In July 2019, X started again to display behavioural issues and consumption, not listening to the rules and not respecting the curfew.

According to his grandmother, X was spending all his paycheck in few minutes on alcohol, cannabis and cigarettes which was admitted by X. [ 19 ] On September 2, 2019, a child living at the grandmother’s house disclosed that X would have touched his private parts. As the grandmother was worried for the other children under her care, she gave up. [ 20 ] As X was not reachable on September 2, 2019, to apply an immediate protective measure, a warrant was needed to find him.

When he was found, as no place was available for him at the rehabilitation centre, he was entrusted to his uncle until September 11, when a place became available. [ 21 ] Since X is at the rehabilitation centre of Town C, he is attending school regularly. Sometimes, he displays behavioural issues. His key worker, Ms. [social worker 3], confirmed that he did not receive special services at school. [ 22 ] Questioned about those services recommended by Dr.

Beltempo and ordered by the Court, the DYP worker answers that X never benefit from a specialized education system and his learning difficulties were not evaluated by the DYP or the school to adapt his schooling. [ 23 ] The DYP worker confirmed that despite Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations, X did not benefit from the strong education program on substance use and abuse. She explained that by the facts that no event of consumption was known from the DYP, but in the application for which she signed an affidavit, she alleges that X displays serious behavioural issues such as drug consumption. [ 24 ] In 2016, Dr.

Beltempo explained, as he did in January, that any further substance use, including inhalants, should be prohibited to him as he already has serious brain damages including irreversible cognitive effects. [ 25 ] The DYP worker also said that no other measure was applied to address his consumption issues. [ 26 ] She also confirms that no step was taken to perform the FASD evaluation recommended by Dr. Beltempo. [ 27 ] The revision report mentioned that X’s situation was declared endangered in November 2007, for a risk of neglect.

Confronted to the fact that the decision in 2007 was not a decision for protection, but a decision for revision, she admitted not being aware that the situation was declared endangered one year before because of a situation of abandon. Analysis [ 28 ] The history of X is a very sad one. He was first abandon by his two parents, who both deceased a few years later.

Considering that, his situation was entrusted to the DYP according to the law (section 92 YPA) and as ordered by the Court in all the previous decision rendered. [ 29 ] The situation was also entrusted to the DYP as the attributes of parental authority had been granted to her. [ 30 ] Despite that, the situation of the youth continues to get worse and worse. [ 31 ] X went through 66 foster homes and he was moved 45 times between August 2014 and May 2016. [ 32 ] It is obvious that those transfers have an impact on him, who already suffered from important neglect, abandon, loss of family members, important learning difficulties, reject, impossibility to create bonds with significant caregivers, important substance abuse, etc. [ 33 ] Being aware of the situation, the DYP paid for a psychological evaluation in the beginning of July 2016, for an update in November 2016, and filed those evaluations as evidence in the court file.

The content of those evaluations is used to justify the need for another psychological evaluation. But despite those two previous ones, nothing was done, and continual transfers occurred. [ 34 ] Exactly the contrary of what X needed.

The recommendations made by the psychologist were not implemented and today, because the evaluation was made three years ago, another is one his recommended. [ 35 ] The Court considers that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged on the following aspects: - He did not receive the specific medical care, even if the DYP was fully aware of his needs by the psychologist [2] (section 8 YPA); - The DYP neglected to insure his stability despite the majority placement [3] ordered by the Court, and his very specific needs fully detailed by Dr.

Beltempo upon the request of the DYP; - The default to respect the Court orders; - The default to take steps to put an end to the situation in which the adolescent was endangered; - The non-respect of his schooling rights. [ 36 ] For sure, the Court will order a new psychological evaluation, but it is very sad to see that X was supposed to receive services three years ago and that nothing was done.

Considering that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the DYP on many aspects and considering that the DYP’s intervention did not permit to put an end to the situation of endangerment, but increase it, the Court will order corrective measures which will have to be applied within a very short delay.

[ 37 ] Also, for many years, X has no tutor and no request was made to have one. This is another violation of his rights. Under

section 180 C.c.Q. , the Court will declare the DYP as the tutor of the adolescent. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are still endangered; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 43 ] ORDERS that health care and services be provided to the adolescent; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the adolescent participate to a psychological evaluation within the next month and all recommendations be followed without any delay, including any other evaluation recommended; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the evaluations be performed in Town D if the adolescent is entrusted in Town D, to avoid another transfer; or to make him travel urgently to Town D if he is entrusted somewhere else; [ 46 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide financially for all the evaluations order by the Court or recommended by the psychologist; [ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the medical and schooling files of X; [ 48 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the medical and schooling information required by the medical professionals without any delay; [ 49 ] DECLARE the Director of Youth Protection as the tutor of the adolescent under

section 180 C.c.Q. ; [ 50 ] ORDERS that an intervention plan be prepared according to the different medical recommendations including the schooling aspects; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive an evaluation for drugs and alcohol abuse and recommendations be followed; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the youth report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school, another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the extended family, namely Ms.

C, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 55 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his family; [ 56 ] 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; [ 57 ] 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; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 59 ] ORDERS the execution of the present decision by any peace officer; [ 60 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the youth

Date of hearing: November 19, 2019