2020 QCCQ 13411, 2020 QCCQ 13411

Protection de la jeunesse — 209344 2020 QCCQ 13411 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002259-189 DATE: October 5, 2020 (written judgment rendered on November 23, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 and prolong a decision rendered on April 24, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to the foster family of Mr. B until April 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation has to be reviewed and asks that she be entrusted to a foster family until April 30, 2021.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent. Me Éliane Villemur who represented her before told the Court that her client was agreed with the recommended measures at the time of the provisional hearing on August 6, 2020. Despite her attempts, she was not able to communicate with the mother since then. The Court proceed in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures.

History of the Situation [ 5 ] On January 30, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 13 and half years old. Ms. A is the adoptive mother of X. Her mother is homeless since 2010 because of the debts she accumulated with the housing department. X was tired to move around so much. The mother does not supervise her daughter nor her school attendance. In December 2018, the mother was called by the school because X falls asleep I the classroom. The mother arrived at school and kick off the youth in the stomach before living.

Right after the mother left alone for Town A, and X was nowhere to be found. X was saying for a long time that she was not feeling well and she was known to be aggressive. The situation of neglect was known since 2013, but no measures were taken until X was entrusted on voluntary measures to a rehabilitation centre from June 2017 to May 2018. Her behaviour was positive when she was at the rehabilitation centre.

The Court declared that the security and development of the adolescent were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family until February 28, 2020, and recommended that this foster family would not be in Town B. [ 6 ] On February 26, 2020 , the Court entrusted X to a foster family on provisional measure and took judicial notice that the foster family would be the one of her brother B. [ 7 ] On April 24, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. In March 2019, the mother came at the foster home, pick up her daughter and went back with her to Town B at her son’s place, Mr. B.

The DYP agreed that X stayed there and the brother was accredited as a foster family for her. In May, X was found unconscious and intoxicated. The mother lives in the same house and she is unable to impose structure to the youth. The mother refuses to meet with the school to reintegrate X at school. According to the DYP, the brother is able to supervise his sister, but need guidance and help regarding his alcohol consumption issue. The Court entrusted the youth to her brother until April 30, 2021. [ 8 ] On August 6, 2020 , the Court entrusted the youth to a foster family on provisional measures.

Facts [ 9 ] According to the revision report, X is described as follows: […] She has difficulties to handle her emotions. The youth needs structure, rules and a constant routine and positive attention around her to behave well. When these elements are not provided to her, X can easily go into outbursts and does what she wants, whenever she wants. When she is in crisis, the teenager can yell, scream and break things around her. […] [ 10 ] As noted by the Court at the previous hearing, the situation at the brother’s house was not a perfect one.

The DYP confirm it in the revision report saying that “during these measures, the youth has not been in a stable environment due to the alcohol consumption and violent behaviour of her foster.” [ 11 ] On July 6, 2020, X went to the DYP office saying that she was not at her brother’s place anymore for the last two weeks because of his drinking issues and because he was verbally abusive towards her. She was living at a friend’s place. [ 12 ] Mr. B was met and he agreed to seek services about his issues saying that his sister suffered a lot during her life and that she deserves to be well surrounded.

He committed to improve his situation to be able to offer a safer and healthier environment to his sister. [ 13 ] The consumption of B was already noted in February 2020, by Justice Godin and she noted that the DYP was conscious of that and would monitor the situation closely. The DYP worker present at the hearing knows that, since April 2020, B came at the DYP office once every two weeks to pick up his check, but totally ignores what kind of clinical follow-up has been made with him.

He also ignores if B’s place was sometimes visited by the former worker, and the revision report remains silent regarding such follow-up. [ 14 ] On July 28, 2020, X, repeated that she was not living at her brother’s place for a few weeks, because he continues to consume alcohol, to be verbally aggressive and physically violent. The mother was not living there either. [ 15 ] Between July 6 and July 28, X was met as she was difficult to be reached.

When informed that the situation was not getting better on July 28, the DYP started to look for a new foster family, but the DYP worker explains to the Court that it was difficult because of the lack of foster families and also by the fact that X has a bad reputation in the village. B was not met during those three weeks to make sure that he respected his commitment. [ 16 ] A provisional measure was rendered on August 6, and X was entrusted to a foster family.

The DYP worker met her after the court hearing, at the office, to introduce the new foster mother, but X reacted strongly, threaten to commit suicide and left the office. The Social Services were called to evaluate the risk. The social worker and the DYP worker went to the brother’s place to meet with X thinking that she could be there, but she was not. It was decided not to run after her in the village, so the suicidal risk had never been evaluated. [ 17 ] The following days, X was seen in the village, but she ran away from the worker each time the worker tries to speak with her.

It is known that she continued to sleep at her brother’s place and at friends’ place. [ 18 ] Despite knowing where she was, and despite the provisional order rendered, no intervention was made to force her to respect the decision, and no warrant was requested. [ 19 ] According to the DYP worker present at the Court, despite the facts that she was living at her brother’s place which it is known to be an unsafe place, despite the fact that she was also living at a friend’s place whom the family was under investigation by the DYP, despite the fact that she was in trouble with the police because of vandalism, and despite the fact that she was drinking a lot, she was not in danger at that time. [ 20 ] The revision report mentions that during this period, she went in Town C with her mother.

The Court asked questions about this trip and wanted to know more about how it could be possible for her to travel by plane with her mother while she is supposed to be in foster family following a Court order, and why nothing was done to prevent her from boarding the plane, but the DYP worker present at the Court totally ignores about this trip. Doing so, the Court had no answer about that. [ 21 ] The DYP was thinking about entrusting her to a Group Home, but around September 9, X suggested being fostered by Ms. C who accepted to foster her. The DYP worker ignored if Ms.

C is a relative or not, but he can testify that she has her own house, she lives alone, she works full time, her house is always clean, X has her own bedroom and no alcohol consumption was suspected in this house. [ 22 ] Ms. C said that X is following the rules. Also, considering the mother did not go to school to registered X, Ms. C went to school to finalize the registration and X is going to school since then. [ 23 ] Since the last decision, the mother, even if she was living in the same house, she remained indifferent to her daughter’s situation. X and her mother do not communicate.

The mother is unaware of her daughter’s whereabouts, and their relation remains unhealthy. Also the mother is regularly absent to escort other people in Montreal. [ 24 ] The DYP worker mentions in her report that the youth has a history of behavioural issues that the DYP wishes to address by offering her a regular follow-up and great amount of support. [ 25 ] Indeed, the situation of X and mostly the neglect she was a victim of, are documented since 2013 (she was around 8 years old).

Voluntary measures were signed in 2017 (she was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, as she was around 12 years old) and since February 2019, the Court is seized with her situation. [ 26 ] Now, as the DYP suggests offering a regular follow-up and a great amount of service, the Court asked what specific services are planned to be offered. The worker present explains that for three weeks, an external educator is appointed and as her case load is less important than the DYP worker’s case load, she will be able to meet X more regularly. As X refused to speak with the DYP workers, she

hopes that the external educator will be able to create a link with her and to convince her to address her past traumas through the Social Services which she refused until today. Analysis [ 27 ] X’s situation clearly remains endangered. As before, her mother continued to be totally absent from her life.

She was entrusted to her brother which could have been beneficial for her to be surrounded by a close relative, but unfortunately she lived another deception. [ 28 ] Despite the concerns clearly expressed by the Court in the last decision and despite the DYP’s commitment to make a close follow-up on the situation, it is obvious that nothing was done since April to make sure that X was safe at her foster place. [ 29 ] If she would not have come to the DYP's office on July 6, to inform the worker about her situation, we can question if her situation would have been known. [ 30 ] Also according to the DYP worker, X was not reachable and it was difficult to find a foster family for her because there are not a lot of foster families, but also because she has a bad reputation.

But, surprisingly, she was able to find one by herself. [ 31 ] She is a young adolescent of 15 years old who suffered already a lot of neglect, reject and physical abuse by the past by her mother. She accumulated a lot of traumas and more the time goes, the more she closes herself. [ 32 ] Those traumas are well documented as her situation is known for many years now. But despite being well known, the situation continues to degenerate. It is degenerating because the services were not provided adequately.

The situation was not taken seriously and as she did not receive support as soon as she needed it and as she continues to not receive services, for sure, she never developed trust and as the DYP workers change regularly, it remains impossible for her to gain trust in the system. More time passed more she closes herself. [ 33 ] Which such turnover at the DYP’s office, it is quite impossible to offer a follow-up which can fulfill the goal of the YPA. [ 34 ] Today, according to the evidence, the only person she trusts is her foster mother. This person is the only one who could have an impact on X.

Doing so, as the adolescent’s lawyer suggested, the Court will recommend that Ms. C be invited to participate to the follow-up in a way to bring X to gain trust in the service and to accept to open herself. [ 35 ] The lack of services is also demonstrated in the default to respect the last provisional orders. Despite the fact that X was seen a few times in the village, no steps were taken to force her to respect the decision. Moreover, she was able to board the plane with her mother to go to Town C.

When a youth is unreachable in a Nordic village and the only way to leave this village is by plane, the Court questions the steps taken to avoid her to leave, by, firstly requesting a warrant and secondly by notifying the airport to be sure that she will not board. [ 36 ] The placement in a foster family is for sure the appropriate measure in the situation, but considering the facts that Ms.

C is for now the only person in whom X has trust, considering the principle of YPA and also the principles of Bill C-92 (Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families) the Court will specifically entrust her to Ms. C.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the application; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged because of the lack of services, the lack of supervision, and the default to respect the last decision; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to Ms. C, and if she is accredited as a foster family, ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to her as such; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother report in person, at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 44 ] ORDERS that to the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the mother are determined by the Youth Protection; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth, the mother and Ms.

C receive the services of an external educator; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her parental capacities and personal issues; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth, her mother and Ms. C; [ 48 ] ORDERS the execution of the present decision by any peace officer; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;

[ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE until April 30, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 5, 2020