2021 QCCQ 12963, 2021 QCCQ 12963

Protection de la jeunesse — 217179 2021 QCCQ 12963 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000286-189 DATE: October 14, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant And X, born on [...], 2006 Teenager And A Mother And B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 the Youth Protection Act, ch.

P-34.1 CQLR ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits an application asking that a judgment rendered on August 20, 2020, by Judge Denyse Leduc be extended.

In that judgment, Judge Leduc ordered the placement of the youth in a foster home for a period of one year. [ 2 ] At the hearing the youth is present with the foster mother. He is represented by Mtre. Yan Massé. Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub acts on behalf of the mother. The father is not present and the parties request that the court proceed nonetheless. [ 3 ] Most of the allegations are admitted by the mother and X admits all of them. [ 4 ] The applicant testified and his revision report was filed.

The Court also heard the mother of the foster family. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that the youth has lived in the same foster home. He is able to respect the house rules. He is doing generally well. [ 6 ] He attends school regularly. [ 7 ] X consumes marijuana, but he declares to the Court that he is trying to quit. He wanted to attend healing week in September, but unfortunately, he did not go. He has regular contacts with his parents. Their situation remains essentially unchanged. The mother slowly recovers.

As for the father, he went to treatment, but has relapsed. [ 8 ] For the time being, the parents cannot resume the care of X on a daily basis. [ 9 ] The youth declares that he is happy in the foster family and he is in agreement with a placement there until he reaches the age of majority. Both parents agree with this recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection which provides stability and continuity to the teenager.

The foster family is committed to taking care of X for a long-term period. [ 10 ] In the previous judgment written by Judge Denyse Leduc, we can read: “[8] The youth met a psychiatrist in May 2019. She recommended services for anger management , an evaluation by a speech therapist and a neuropsychologist . Unfortunately, those evaluations are not done yet. The report was transmitted to the applicant only 2 weeks ago and she does not understand french. She did not ask for the translation. [9] In this report, the psychiatrist concluded that the youth does not have a TDAH (ADHD) and there is no need for medication.

[10] The Court believes that the youth’s situation requires a complete medical and psychological evaluation in a short delay . The evidence reveals that the Director was late in complying with the previous Court orders and the specific needs of X are not yet all assessed and known.

It is therefore urgent that a person in charge specifically takes care of this file and ensures the follow-up .” (Parenthesis and underlines added by the undersigned) [ 11 ] When the Court asked the applicant if the recommendations of the psychiatrist have been followed, the answer is no. [ 12 ] Therefore the Court raised the possibility that X’s rights have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] The case was postponed to a later date in order to give the parties the opportunity to review their file and be prepared to answer the questions raised by the situation. [ 14 ] The Court heard the testimony of [Social Worker 2], who is a coordinator at Youth Protection. [ 15 ] She has acted as coordinator since June 7, and she is also team leader. [ 16 ] She is in charge of [Community A], [Community B] and [Community C]. [ 17 ] Before her, [Social Worker 3] was the one occupying this function. [ 18 ] She begins her testimony saying that the last “ real active worker ” in this file was [Social Worker 4] who quit in October 2020.

After that, the file was assigned to [Social Worker 5] for 2 months. There are no progress notes in the file despite the legal obligation to write anything done in relation with the youth. Most likely than not, there were no interventions of Mr. [Social Worker 5] with the youth, the foster family or X’s parents. [ 19 ] After that, the file was under the name of [Social Worker 3] who was the coordinator. As a coordinator, he is not the one providing services.

When a file cannot be assigned to a social worker, usually, they are put under the name of the coordinator or the team leader so « technically », the situation of the youth is not on a waiting list. There is no progress notes in the file until Mr. [Social Worker 1] was assigned in August 2021, a few weeks before the end of the measures rendered by Judge Denyse Leduc that were to end on August 20. [ 20 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 2], explains the situation by staff shortage.

During the last year, mostly, the interventions were done with children who were at risk for their safety or for teenagers with behavioural disturbances. [ 21 ] As X does not have behavioural disturbances and as he is in a stable foster family, his file was at the bottom of the pile. [ 22 ] The witness states that an intervention plan will be drafted very soon, that a medical appointment will be requested for X and that all other necessary services like psychological assessment, intervention plan in school (X has delays) are going to be put in place. [ 23 ] She will ensure that all this will happen by having regular meeting with the Social Worker and by supervising the file at regular intervals. [ 24 ] It is becoming important that X be provided with all necessary services as he is going to be 18 in a short delay.

He must have tools to be able to live his adult life adequately. [ 25 ] The situation is sad because it impaired the development of X which is as important as the security of other teenagers. [ 26 ] What is sad here is that the mother, because of her personal health challenges cannot fully exercise her surveillance rights over the work done by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 27 ] There is no adult supervising the situation of the child, and despite the fact that Judge Leduc already denounced the situation last year, one year later, we remain at a standstill. [ 28 ] X has special needs that must be met adequately by professionals as he will, very soon, be an adult and he will have to fend for himself. [ 29 ] So the Court concludes that X’s rights have been wronged by the Director, especially under sections 8, 69 and 92 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 30 ] The measures to correct the situation are included in the measures the Court is ordering in the best interest of X.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2006, are still endangered; [ 33 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the last Court decision; [ 34 ] ORDERS the placement of the X in a foster family until he reaches the age of majority and namely the foster family of C; [ 35 ] ORDERS that contacts between the youth and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 36 ] ORDERS X receive counselling concerning drug and alcohol consumption;

[ 37 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a regular basis and collaborate with the professional giving him support at school; [ 38 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the youth and the family until X reaches the age of majority and that the child be met at least twice a month by the Social Worker for the next 12 months; [ 39 ] ORDERS that an intervention plan be crafted within 20 days including an intervention plan with the school; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the recommendations made by the psychiatrist in May 2019 be put in place within 90 days from October 14, 2021; [ 41 ] ORDERS that an appointment be made with a doctor within 60 days from October 14, 2021; [ 42 ] ORDERS that X receive medical and psychological assessments and be provided with all necessary services, and this, in the best delays [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Adelia Ferreira Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Legal Aid Lawyer for the teenager Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Marie-Josée Ayoub Lawyer Lawyer for the mother Dates of hearing: September 29 and October 14, 2021