2020 QCCQ 15233, 2020 QCCQ 15233

Protection de la jeunesse — 209365 2020 QCCQ 15233 WARNING : The Minister of Justice of Québec must see to it that, upon demand from any lnuit party, the judgments with reasons of the courts, judges, tribunals, bodies and commissions that are not rendered orally and in open court, but in writing, are translated as of right into lnuttituut without cost, for purposes of information only [1] .

COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002376-199 DATE: May 22, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 18, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant And B, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother And C, 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 child X, born on [...], 2007, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (e) (1) and (f) [2]

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (YPA). [ 2 ] The DYP asks firstly that the child remained with his parents, but recommended finally on February 6, 2020, that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until September 30, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel and Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are endangered under

section (b) (1) iii and (f), but she disagrees with the measures. She wishes her son back at home under her care. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Migué and Me Neptune. He does not consider that the security and development of his child are endangered and he also contests the measures. [ 5 ] X is present and represented by Me Villemur. He disagrees with the measures. [ 6 ] X has one younger brother and one younger sister. The Court is also seized with their situation. History of the Situation [ 7 ] The situation of the B family is known from the DYP for a few years.

Indeed, the older sister, Y is followed by the DYP services. She was placed in a foster family because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs consumption, and the parents’ violent conjugal relationship. Despite a few revisions, the situation remained the same. The mother was arrested twice and showed suicidal ideation each time. Y is entrusted until majority to white people who live in the North. Doing so, she remains in contact with her culture. [ 8 ] X was also the object of a few reports:

- November 11, 2012: serious risk of physical abuse from a third party. The facts were founded, but the security and development not endangered; - April 8, 2013: physical abuse from the grandfather while intoxicated. The facts were unfounded on this ground, but found on 38 (b) (2) (serous risk of neglect due to the mother) and security and development endangered. A voluntary measure was signed from June to September 2013; - February 21, 2014: physical abuse from the grandfather.

The reported facts were insufficient and the file remained on a waiting list for eight months; - December 11, 2015: physical abuse from the mother (burned once and bitten regularly). The situation was submitted to the Court. [ 9 ] On March 17, 2016 , the Court was seized with X’s situation. He was 9 years old. The mother admitted having burned her son’s eyebrow because he wanted to smoke a cigarette. She also recognized that she hit him sometimes to discipline him. She regretted and said that she will not use those methods again. The mother feels depressed and she could not count on the father to help her.

The father understood the situation, said being ready to be more involved and willing to work with the mother and the DYP to offer a better structure to his son. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [3] , entrusted him to a foster family, took note that he was at that time with his grandfather and ordered that he benefit from a psychological evaluation, the whole until October 31, 2016. [ 10 ] On October 12, 2016 , the evidence revealed that the child remained with his grandfather, but frequently went to his parents’ place without authorization from the DYP.

His behaviour at school improved, but he still had difficulty to socialize. His parents still had alcohol consumption issues. The mother expressed remorse to have used violence towards the child. The parents improved their collaboration with the DYP and with the school. The Court entrusted him to his parents and ordered specific health care services including a psychological assessment and follow-up if required.

The file was closed at the end of the measure. [ 11 ] On September 6, 2019 , the Court was supposed to be seized with the application for protection, but because of a lack of time and the absence of a court worker to enable the communication between X and his lawyer, the Court postponed the hearing and maintained the previous provisional measures in the file of the two youngest children while no provisional measures were requested for X. [ 12 ] On October 25, 2019 , the Court was seized with a provisional application for X requesting that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

The Court granted this application. [ 13 ] On November 22, 2019 , for the same reason as in September, the Court had to postpone again the hearing under

section 38 YPA. The DYP required that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre despite the fact that since the last order he was not there because of a lack of places. The Court rendered the following decision: CONSIDERING the application under

section 38 of the YPA; CONSIDERING the lack of time; CONSIDERING that a court worker is needed to allow Me Desmarais to communicate with X; CONSIDERING that no court worker was available this week at the Court house of City A; CONSIDERING that X is old enough to communicate and to give a mandate to his lawyer; CONSIDERING that the DYP took steps to find a community worker to allow X to communicate with his lawyer even if this solution is not the best; CONSIDERING that despite those attempts, no community worker is available in City B nor in City A; CONSIDERING the DYP asks the Court to maintain the status quo (rehabilitation centre for X and foster family for Z and A); CONSIDERING that the last provisional measures rendered on October 25, 2019, in X’s file was not respected as X is not yet in a rehabilitation centre because of a lack of places for him; CONSIDERING the DYP insist to proceed despite the impossibility of communication between Me Desmarais and his client; CONSIDERING the Court accepted to hear the testimony of the DYP worker; CONSIDERING the denial of Justice caused by the absence of a court worker; CONSIDERING the evidence that X is at risk to suffer from a serious prejudice if he is maintained at his parents’ place; CONSIDERING that while waiting for a place in a rehabilitation centre, X is living at his grandfather’s place; CONSIDERING the evidence that the supervision is poor at the grandfather’s place; CONSIDERING that the name of X was put on a waiting list by [Organization A]; CONSIDERING the

section 93 YPA which set that “Every decision or order of the Tribunal is enforceable as soon as it is rendered and any person contemplated in it must comply therewith without delay”;

CONSIDERING the default to respect the provisional order; COURT DECISION: GRANTS the verbal application under

section 76.1 YPA; DECLARES that the rights of the child X was wronged by the DYP; ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; As corrective measures and despite

section 91 YPA: ORDERS that X be entrusted to his grandfather until a place is available for him at the rehabilitation centre; ORDERS the DYP to supervise very closely the situation at the grandfather’s place; ORDERS that X attend school on a daily basis; ENTRUSTS Z and A to a foster family; ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the DYP as their frequency, terms and modalities; ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the DYP for the execution of the present judgment; SUMMONS a representative from [Center A] who intervenes in X’s file, Ms. [social worker 2] DYP, X’s teacher for the school year 2018-2019, a representative from the Social Services who worked with the father regarding X’s schooling to testify at the hearing under

section 38 YPA; ORDERS that a court worker be present during all the week in which the hearing under

section 38 YPA will be fixed; FIXES the hearing under

section 38 YPA proforma ex parte on November 29, 2019, at 9:30 am, to fix a date for the hearing. Facts [ 14 ] On February 6, 2019, the situation of X was reported again to the DYP because of a situation of physical abuse from the father who totally denied it. When X was met by the DYP he confirmed the event, but refused to give any details.

On February 14, 2019, a multi-sectorial interview was made. [ 15 ] Questioned by the Court about the position of the DYP who alleged physical abuse under YPA, the DYP worker answered “For that, I think I will have to read over my paper, but it was, I think, a history of the father choking X. But I have to say that for now, I do not remember the end of the conclusion.” [ 16 ] On May 1, 2019, the father was met regarding the report of physical abuse.

He denied it and asserted that everything was going well with the children. [ 17 ] No other interventions were made in the interval and the evaluation of the situation of X started after the reception of the reports concerning the two youngest [4] regarding neglect in terms of medical needs and neglect in terms of supervision. [ 18 ] The parents’ alcohol consumption issues were known from the DYP. The father works 12 hours a day and he is not implicated in his children’s lives.

The mother, on her side, was tired of being alone to take care of the children, and, as demonstrated in the file of the two youngest children, they were neglected and at risk to be neglected because of the mother’s alcohol consumption and the father’s absence. [ 19 ] According to the information provided to the DYP worker, it is mostly the mother who takes care of the children.

The father was involved when the mother was detained, but since she is back, he does not participate anymore to the care. [ 20 ] Moreover, the parents get separated in September 2019. [ 21 ] It is also reported that X would have behavioural issues as not attending school, sniffing gas and aggressiveness with other children. 1- School attendance [ 22 ] On May 2, 2019, the DYP was informed by the school that X only went to school on August 22, 2018, PM, September 14, 2018, all day, October 22, 2018, PM and November 5, 2018, PM.

The father informed the school at the beginning of the school year that X would not go as he has to stay home to take care of his younger siblings as the mother was detained and the father had to work. The teacher describes the youth, “as a negative leader, who does not listen, smoke cigarettes, plays with lighter and shows disturbing behaviours in class.” [5] [ 23 ] The DYP worker met the father who confirmed the situation.

He added that X will go back to school when the mother is released and also that the previous year X was “almost killed by other children.” [ 24 ] The DYP worker ignores why no report was made before, regarding the school non-attendance and also ignores the date when X stopped going to school on a regular basis.

[ 25 ] X did not succeed his school year 2017-2018. [ 26 ] Despite X’s intention to go back to school in September 2019, and the help from the DYP worker to complete the registration form, X did not go to school in 2019-2020. [ 27 ] The teacher in Grade 4 told the DYP worker that it is impossible to evaluate if he could have learning difficulties because X was always absent from school. [ 28 ] Mr. D, teacher for X during the school year 2018-2019, also testifies at the hearing. He testifies in May 2020 during the confinement. He was at his place in City C, Ontario. Despite being a teacher in [region A], Mr.

D asked to testify in French. Because of the confinement, the hearing took place by videoconference and he had been unable to connect to the website via the link provided to him. Even if the Court spelt him the URL, he was unable to transcript it and he finally connected by phone. [ 29 ] Mr. D asserts that X went to school only twice in 2018-2019. He is aware that the Social Services were notified by the school about the non-attendance, but personally he never took steps to communicate with the DYP. He only notified the school principal.

He remembers that a lady from the Social Services came to meet with him about X, but he does not know what had happened after. [ 30 ] He reminds that, at a certain point, X’s name was not anymore on the students list, but he does not know since when, as he left all his notes in City B in March 2020, when the school closed. [ 31 ] Mr. D was never made aware of a possible situation of bullying X would have been the victim of nor any assault during the summer 2018. [ 32 ] The DYP worker also spoke with Ms. [social worker 3] from the Social Services.

She confirmed that she had multiple meetings from September 2018 to March 2019 to convince the family to make sure that X would attend school. According to her, every time, the father had reasons to justify the non-attendance. [ 33 ] Mr. [social worker 4] was present at the hearing to testify about the follow-up provided to the family by the Social Services.

He was not responsible for the file before the DYP's intervention, but he had to do some interventions and took time to read all the Social Services file before coming at the court hearing. [ 34 ] Mr. [social worker 4] explains that the first reference was made when X was beaten up by other youths and was medevaced to City G. Once he came back in City B, the Social Services went home to help the family. After that, numerous interventions were made with the family because X was not going to school. The father gave various reasons to justify the non-attendance and always said that he would go the next day.

Finally, the father justifies it by the fact that X had to stay at home to babysit his younger siblings. During those meetings a community worker was present to facilitate the communication. [ 35 ] Mr. [social worker 4] testifies about the two reports that have been made to the DYP because of the school non-attendance. One report was made on October 16, 2018, and another one on November 28, 2018. The file does not contain notes about any feedback from the DYP. [ 36 ] It was suggested to Mr. [social worker 4] that the DYP receive the first communication from the Social Services at the beginning of May 2019.

For him, it is possible that another one communication was made at that time, but he reiterated that two previous interventions were made in fall 2018. For him, it is a professional obligation to communicate such information to the DYP when the situation of a child is endangered. [ 37 ] The DYP worker ignores everything about the bullying and the hospitalization.

She only knows that the Social Services made an intervention with the family during summer 2018, and that X had to be hospitalized in City G for one week because of serious injuries. [ 38 ] The DYP worker confirms that no intervention was made with the school about that because it was not more relevant as X was not going to school. [ 39 ] The DYP worker’s opinion is that the parents did not realize the seriousness of the situation and that they did not take the appropriate measures to ensure X’s schooling. [ 40 ] The parents’ position is quite different.

They testified that they took some steps to address the issue with the school and with the Social Services, but they did not receive adequate help or with the required intensity. [ 41 ] At the hearing, both parents assert that the schooling is very important for them and they ask for help to be able to ensure their son’s schooling despite his fear to be in contact with the children who injured him. 2- Violent behaviours [ 42 ] On May 29, 2019, the police intervention was required because X would have assaulted another youth. [ 43 ] During the evaluation of the report, the police occurrence history was consulted and the DYP worker noted that X was suspected of assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and breaking and entering on December 4, 2017.

At that time he was 10 years old. Despite the seriousness of those infractions, the DYP worker ignores why the police officer did not inform the DYP at that time. Knowing that the previous application of measures had ended in June 2017, a proper intervention could have been done at that time. 3- Sniffing gas and drug consumption [ 44 ] On July 4, 2019, X was seen sniffing gas. The police was called and he was brought to the nursing. At that time, the parents were on the land and unreachable.

[ 45 ] In September and October 2019, the DYP received a few reports about X being intoxicated or having sniffed gasoline. The DYP worker tried to make an intervention with X, but he refused to speak with her. She also tried to discuss about the bullying he was the victim of, but he also refused to open up about that. 4- Psychological aspect [ 46 ] On September 1, 2019, an emergency intervention had to be done because of suicidal verbalization from X’s part. He was in a shack with a loaded gun. He said that the relation between him and his mother was difficult at that time.

According to the DYP worker, when the mother was met, she did not seem to realize the gravity of the situation. [ 47 ] The DYP worker remained with X, and he finished getting better. She spoke with him about the school, and he appeared to be happy to go back. She helped him to complete the appropriate form for his registration, made the father signed and dropped it back to the school. [ 48 ] Unfortunately, this motivation to go to school did not last.

As mentioned before, as soon as September 11, 2019, X arrived at school intoxicated and following that he totally stopped attending school. [ 49 ] On October 9, 2019, he displayed suicidal ideation again and after the Social Services intervention, it was decided to take an immediate protective measure and to entrust him to a rehabilitation centre. [ 50 ] Since 2012, the situation of X was reported a few times for physical abuse. Twice the file was closed. Once, a voluntary measure was applied and another time, the file was submitted to the Court. The last measure ended in June 2017.

Since then, he was a victim of bullying at school and was seriously injured. He also stopped going to school. [ 51 ] Questioned about the impact of all those events on his psychological health, the DYP worker recognizes that it could have an impact on X’s self-esteem and he could have difficulty to understand what is happened exactly and why. But as X refuses to open up with the DYP worker, she says being unable to evaluate how he feels.

On this matter, the Court asks her, if she considers that a psychological evaluation could be helpful, and she answers that for now, it is not necessary. [ 52 ] The DYP worker confirms that she did not read the previous decision rendered in the situation of X, so she ignores that a psychological evaluation was ordered in March 2016, and reiterated in October 2016. [ 53 ] The current DYP worker is responsible for this file since June 2019.

When she was assigned, she took time to take acknowledge of the police occurrence reports for the parents and for X, the Social Services file for the parents and X, the evaluation reports made by the previous DYP worker and she spoke with the parents and the adolescent. She was not able to obtain the school’s file because the previous school principal was not collaborative with the DYP.

Since January 2020, there is a new school principal who is much more collaborative, but she did not make any request to receive information from the school and ignores if the previous worker did. 5- Evolution of the situation since the beginning of the hearing [ 54 ] As mentioned, the DYP firstly recommended that X be maintained at his parents’ place.

But, in August 2019, new facts happened and the orientation changed. [ 55 ] On October 2, 2019, the DYP worker met with the mother and shared her concerns regarding X behaviour (consumption of marijuana, sniffing gasoline, suicidal ideation and no appropriate structure). At that time, the mother was leaving a few days after to [Company A] where she worked.

She confirms that she would speak with her son, set out a routine and make sure with the grandfather that he will apply the same structure at his place and be vigilant regarding the suicidal ideation. [ 56 ] Unfortunately, on October 7 and 8, 2019, X would have sniffed gasoline while he was unattended at his grandfather’s place. [ 57 ] On October 9, while he was still at his grandfather, he sniffed gasoline three times during the day and had suicidal ideation. The suicidal risk was evaluated and he was placed under the care of his aunt for the night, but he left and went back to his grandfather’s place.

Once there he sniffed gas again and continued to have suicidal ideation. [ 58 ] During the night, the DYP took an immediate protective measure and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre in City B. The father confirmed not being able to supervise him properly, and consented that the placement is prolonged. The mother was unreachable at that time as she was still working at [Company A]. [ 59 ] During the night, “despite the supervision,” X ran away from the rehabilitation centre and came back the day after to pick up his coat.

The DYP worker explains that X, with the help of another youth also entrusted to the rehabilitation centre, was able to run away. She said that “He rub his butt on the wall, which made electricity static. He was able to put his butt nearby the magnetic door and unlocked it.

And then he just have a big green button, very accessible nearby the door, that he pushed three seconds and he’s out.” She adds that, despite the numerous requests the DYP made to [Center A] about this simplicity to run away from a rehabilitation centre, the DYP was never provided with a satisfied answer. [ 60 ] The DYP worker asked that he stay one more day to stabilize and to evaluate the suicidal risk.

On October 10, the Group Home reached the DYP worker and asked to assess him shortly as he cannot stay longer because there is no room for him. [ 61 ] After October 10, X was maintained at his grandfather's place following a family agreement. [ 62 ] The grandfather offered to supervise X and committed himself to ensure that X will not sniff gas and that he will bring him to the nursing as scheduled.

But for an unknown reason, the grandfather did not go to the nursing on October 14, as it had been planned. [ 63 ] The DYP worker communicated with the school and learned that X did not often go to school in September and not at all in

October 2019. [ 64 ] The DYP seized the Court with a provisional application and on October 25, 2019, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre as requested by the DYP and as the parents agreed. Following the hearing, the DYP filled out the necessary documents in order to subscribe X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 65 ] But, according to the report [6] , “[Center A], who are in charge of the placement, have replied the next day that the request was well received, but that there is no bed available for the moment.

The youth was placed on a waiting list. [Center A] are unaware of how long it might take before his admission.” [7] [ 66 ] The DYP worker testifies that the DYP “submits a request to [Center A], they are the one that are selecting the specific resources for the youth. We have no right to suggest a place. They are the one that they assign the youth to the proper facility they have the availability for him regarding his needs [8] .” [ 67 ] On November 22, 2019, the DYP worker learned that X was suspected of committing a breaking and enter ten days ago, and also heard about another event.

Those two situations justified the DYP to make another request to [Center A] to obtain a place for X in a rehabilitation centre. [ 68 ] The same day, the Court rendered a new provisional order [9] and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre as requested by the DYP. The Court was also informed at that time, the order rendered on October 25 was not respected and the DYP hoped that a new Court order could help to obtain a place. [ 69 ] The DYP made five interventions at the grandfather’s place between December 2 and December 13, 2019.

Also X was seen a few times at his mother's place and each time the DYP worker told him to go back to his grandfather’s, but X was not collaborative. [ 70 ] On December 3, 2019, the DYP sent an update of X’s situation in the hope to receive a positive answer and to have X’s name placed higher on the waiting list. [ 71 ] On December 19, 2019, the DYP presented a verbal application for a provisional measure in which it is alleged that the grandfather was detained since December 13, 2019, and that this information is known since December 18.

X was living at his mother’s place since December 13, upon his own decision. The Court refused to hear a verbal application and ordered that a written application be served if the DYP would like to have the previous provisional measure modified. [ 72 ] On December 19, the mother told at the hearing that X was supposed to take a flight to Cape Dorset the next day to visit his grandmother and other family members for Christmas Holiday. The DYP never authorized this trip and heard about this plan at the hearing.

As the Court reiterates the entrustment of X in a rehabilitation centre, X was placed on the same day at the City B Group Home. [ 73 ] On December 20, 2019, a written application was supposed to be presented, but the DYP filled a discontinuance of this application. [ 74 ] X finally transferred to the Group Home in City A on December 23, 2019. In February 2020, the DYP explained that the first month was a period of observation and an intervention plan was made.

The objectives mentioned in this intervention plan were the following: - To go to school; - To enhance his academic abilities with the help of a tutor; - To understand the consequences of the drugs and his delinquent behaviour; - To understand how he compromised his health and development; - To develop social skills; - To better express himself; - To improve his self-esteem; - To better manage his emotion; - To understand how to make better choices; - To respect the rules and the program of the rehabilitation centre [10] . [ 75 ] Still in February 2020, the DYP worker explains that, since the beginning of the placement, X has a lot of difficulty to respect the rules and particularly the curfew: “The youth at the group home have has access to a free… daily free time.

On most of those free times, X has not respect the condition about his curfew. We could at least recall three situation where X arrive very late at night, and one runaway that lend more than twenty-eight hour [11] .” [ 76 ] In April, the DYP worker testified that since he is placed at the rehabilitation centre, X runs away numerous times and for long periods of time. The City A Group Home is an open one, and the youth can go outside. X spent a few days outside and some of the time, he had to ask for money to be able to eat.

Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that the situation is worrisome, but as X only speaks Inuktitut, it is impossible to have him entrusted somewhere else as he would not be able to communicate.

[ 77 ] The educators also had to intervene because X had lighter on him and was caught smoking. [ 78 ] The DYP maintains the position that X has to be placed in a rehabilitation centre. The objectives he will have to work on, will be to go to school on a regular basis, to improve his social skills and his emotions expression.

At the centre, X would receive help for his academic abilities, he would receive the support of an individual tutor and regarding his delinquency and consumption issues, he would participate to group sessions to better understand the consequences on his life, on his health and on his development. 6- DYP’s testimony [ 79 ] Ms. [social worker 2], City D DYP, testified at the hearing regarding the reasons for the delay between the decision rendered on October 25, 2019, and the date of the entrustment at the rehabilitation centre (December 19 in City B and December 23 in City A). [ 80 ] Firstly, Ms. [social worker 2] explains that she has a big challenge with the rehabilitation centres because there is not enough place in the rehabilitation centres in the North and when it is needed to place a youth somewhere else because of a lack of places in the North, she needs to obtain collaboration from other DYP and she also has to take into consideration the language barrier.

Indeed, some Inuk children only speak Inuktitut. Those children can be entrusted only in the North. The youths who also speak English can be placed in City G following an agreement with Center B. It is very rare that a youth speak French enough to be able to be placed in a French rehabilitation centre. [ 81 ] X speaks only Inuktitut. As mentioned, the hearing was postponed a few times because no court worker was available to permit the communication between X and his lawyer. It is the same thing at the rehabilitation centre.

X can be entrusted only in the North. [ 82 ] Secondly, Ms. [social worker 2] explains the organization of the Youth Protection in the North. There is two DYP: The [DYP B] (City

E) and the [DYP A] (City D). Each organization is very separated with its own Director of Youth Protection and its own employees. But those two organizations share one service provided by another organization. This organization is named [Center A]. [ 83 ] The role of [Center A] is to manage all the rehabilitation services for the [region A], except regarding the rehabilitation centre located in City A, which is under the exclusive responsibility of Ms. [social worker 2] herself as DYP. But in this exception, there is another exception.

Indeed, Ms. [Social Worker 2] is responsible for the administration organization and human resources in this centre, but [Centern A] remains responsible for the management of the places and for the establishment of the priority of placements. Doing so, this organization determines which youth will have a place in which centre. The clinical orientation is made by the DYP, but the prioritization is made by [Center A]. [ 84 ] [Center A] also has the responsibility to create links with other rehabilitation centres in the South to obtain places for the Inuk children under YPA and under YCJA.

It is possible, like in the situation of X, that [Center A] has no place for a youth. In such situation Ms. [social worker 2] explains that as DYP, she communicates with [Center A] Director and she insists on the importance to find a place.

She ensures that her interventions are driven all the time by the best interest of each youth and their particular needs. [ 85 ] Knowing that when a decision is rendered by the Court, the situation of the youth is entrusted to the DYP for the execution of the decision, and considering the fact that a decision has to be applied immediately, the Court questioned Ms. [social worker 2] about the role and the power of the DYP to implement the decision if a third party prevent her from being able to apply the decision.

Ms. [social worker 2] answers, “for sure, we have the responsibility all the time to apply the decision, and for us, it is not… it is not a question. We… we apply the decision and the judge order, for sure [12] .” She continues as follows, “for sure, if I’m not agree with the [Center A] or the director of the readaptation services for the North, I … I speak with this person and we try to identify a solution for… for the kid, for sure.

And sometimes, I take a measures, measures de protection immediate and (inaudible) a place in the readaptation centre because I…[…] when I’m not agree with the [Center A], I speak with the director and we try to find a solution for teenager or each child for sure.” [13] [ 86 ] After giving those general explanations, Ms. [social worker 2] explains what happened specifically in the situation of X. First, as mentioned, an application for provisional measures asking a placement in a rehabilitation centre was presented to the Court and this application was granted on October 25, 2019.

Despite this Court application, the DYP made the request to [Center A] only on October 31, 2019, and, at that time, provided [OrCenter A] with all the relevant information to have a place for X. Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that the request should have been done before the hearing, as soon as the DYP had concluded that the situation of this youth requested a placement in a rehabilitation centre. And at least, the request should have been made the day of the decision, but the really same day, the worker left for vacation and the application of the decision was made by his colleague one week after.

Ms. [social worker 2] asserts that since the situation of X, the directives changed and the request has to be made before the hearing. [ 87 ] Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that she made some pressure with [CenterA] to obtain a place for X, but without success. On November 22, 2019, the DYP made another request with the same conclusions as the previous one with the hope a second decision could be helpful to obtain satisfaction from [Center A]. Ms. [social worker 2] mentions that the DYP worker was confused with the second decision dated on November 22, 2019. She understood that X was entrusted to his grandfather.

Following the event of November 12, which was known only on November 22, just after the Court hearing, the DYP planned to make another application for provisional measures. This matter was resolved later when the minutes of the hearing was provided and when [Center A] informed the DYP that it was not necessary to obtain another court decision. This one was enough to entrust X. After reading the minutes, Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that it was very clear.

The only issue remains the lack of places in the rehabilitation centre in the [region A]. [ 88 ] At the end, the situation was resolved when the DYP presented a verbal application on December 19, which was refused by the Court and the Court suggested that X be entrusted to the Group Home in City B for the night waiting for the hearing fixed on December 20. [ 89 ] Ms. [social worker 2] was never informed before reading the minutes that the Court made comments about the encroachment of rights and corrective measures to be applied. [ 90 ] She confirms that a follow-up was made two or three times a week and according to her, such intensity was enough to ensure

the safety of X. [ 91 ] Questioned by the Court, Ms. [social worker 2] recognized that on December 19, and December 20, the Court was seized with an application requesting two incompatible measures at the same time (the placement in a rehabilitation centre because X would suffer from a serious risk of prejudice if he would remain at home and an entrustment at his mother’s place). To hold this hearing, the judge sitting in City A during that week had to suspend the files she was hearing to permit the undersigned to proceed on such application which finished by a discontinuance.

Ms. [social worker 2] admitted that everybody: the two judges, the lawyers, the DYP workers, the parents wasted their time for that. [ 92 ] Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that during the previous follow-up (2016-2017) the psychological evaluation ordered twice by the Court was not done. Ms. [social worker 2] recognizes that it is not normal that the file has been closed without this ordered psychological evaluation be done.

Considering his background and the actual difficulties to intervene with him, Ms. [social worker 2] considers that this psychological evaluation would be beneficial. [ 93 ] Regarding the lot of running away since X is entrusted to the Group Home, Ms. [social worker 2] explains that the Group Home in City A in an open unit. It is a big house in City A, and the door is open. The village is small, so the rehabilitation centre is close to everything and it is very easy to leave the unit.

In the situation of X, some measures were implemented to ensure his safety such as closing the door and having a safe guard present as often as possible. Despite those measures, X is able to run away and the DYP is well aware that during those running away, he consumes drugs and sniffs gasoline. [ 94 ] At the end of her testimony Ms. [social worker 2] summarizes the challenges the DYP is facing as follows: “the problem that we have, it’s not simple. It’s very systemic.

We need to put in place, different measure, organization measure, more space, work with the other departments because in [region A], the Youth protection is … is the door for the Youth Services. It’s not the… it’s not the sens of the law, but we work closely with the social services to put in place some services for the kid, not just for the Youth Protection, but it’s under the (inaudible) of youth.” [14] 7- Ms. [social worker 5]’s testimony [ 95 ] Ms. [social worker 5] is the Director of [Center A].

She testifies on general aspects, and also regarding the interventions made by [Center A] in the specific situation of X. [ 96 ] She explains firstly that [Center A] is the entrance gate for rehabilitation services. Every request of placement has to go through [Center A]. She precise “[Center A] is under rehabilitation services, so we are not under the DYP.

It is the DYP that refers clients to us for placement requests.” [15] [ 97 ] When the DYP needs a place for a youth in a rehabilitation centre, different forms have to be filled-out and different documents have to be provided to [Center A] to assess the situation and to be able to determine in which unit this youth will be entrusted to. [ 98 ] If a place responding to the needs of the youth is available, the youth is placed immediately.

If there is no available place, his or her name is put on a waiting list and the delay to attribute a place depends on different factors: the age, the behaviour, the specific needs and it also depends on the facts that the request is made before or after the court hearing. [ 99 ] When the youth is on a waiting list, [Center A] asks the DYP if this youth could be entrusted down South. According to the answer, the appropriate steps are taken. [ 100 ] Ms. [social worker 5] mentions, “I have no choice to honour a Court order.

The problem is, if I have no space, no beds available, then he still has to go on a waiting list.” [16] [ 101 ] In the specific situation of X, Ms. [social worker 5] confirms that [Center A] received the request on October 31, 2019. It is when she heard about him for the first time and she learned that it was ordered by the Court. Because of his age, he was put on five different waiting lists (Group Homes for 6 to 12 years old and Group Homes for 12 to 17 years old). A place became available on December 3, at the City F Group Home.

The DYP was asked if the place is still needed for X and the answer was yes. [ 102 ] Doing so, [Center A] organized a meeting called Access Table with the persons concerned by X’s situation (DYP worker, educators, etc.), but the DYP told [Center A] that the judge had ordered that X be entrusted to his grandfather and the DYP had no more valid Court order for a placement, but planned to ask for one during the week of December 16.

The place available in City F was given to another youth. [ 103 ] Knowing that the DYP still wanted to entrust X, [Center A] told the DYP worker that a place would become available on December 23, 2019. In the interval, [Center A] received the Court order of November 22, 2019, and did not understand why the DYP was looking for a new Court order as this one was valid. [ 104 ] Ms. [social worker 5] asserts that “in an ideal world, I would have wished that we have an access table to discuss the youth’s situation before asking the Court for placement.

And in an ideal world it would be nice to have enough space for all the requests that we have been receiving.” [17] [ 105 ] Regarding the fact that X, while he was placed in City B on October 10, 2019, for suicidal ideation had been able to run away from the unit, Ms. [social worker 5] explains that he had been helped by another youth who knew that the door was broken.

When the Court suggested her that this door was broken for a time long enough for this youth to be aware of this malfunction, she answers that it is possible. [ 106 ] The same issue of running away exist in City A, as mentioned by all the previous witness, but Ms. [social worker 5] cannot explain why it is so easy to run away from this Group Home “because that Group Home is managed by [social worker 2].” [18]

[ 107 ] During that time, the parents will have to improve their collaboration with the DYP, mostly the father as the mother improved a lot on this aspect since the beginning of the hearing. 8- Parents’ position [ 108 ] The parents testified in February at the hearing for protection and also in May 2020, on the applicable measures, after that the DYP had announced that the reintegration of the two youngest was done at the mother’s place. [ 109 ] The mother recognized X’s non-attendance at school. According to her, this poor attendance is due to the bullying he suffers.

She had been detained during a certain period of time and was unable to intervene at that time. But when she was present, she said that she insisted for him to go to school. She did not know where she could have services for that. [ 110 ] Today, she considers that her situation is better and according to her, it is for this reason the DYP accepted to reintegrate the two youngest. She considers being able to take care of X now, and to force him to go to school.

She says that the schooling is very important for her and she is able to find the appropriate service easily today than before. [ 111 ] She speaks with him regularly over the phone and he is sad. He is missing his family. But she recognizes that he is doing better than before. Now, considering that he is doing better, she wants to have him at home to raise him according to her values and her culture. [ 112 ] The father also confirms that X was not going to school because he was scared of his peers. He had been beaten up at the head a few times, and since then he is very scared.

For the father, the schooling is important and he would like his son attend school in safe conditions. He would like someone to be present with him all the time. The father asserts that he notified the school about X’s fear, but, according to him, nothing was done. [ 113 ] The father agrees with the recommendations, but wants his son back a soon as possible. He wants to teach him the traditional activities, and he wants him to go to school on a regular basis with the appropriate help.

Analysis 1- Need of protection [ 114 ] The DYP alleges that his situation is endangered because X would be a victim of neglect in terms of educational needs, because he would have been a victim of physical abuse and because he would have serious behavioural issues. a- Neglect in terms of educational needs [ 115 ] It is admitted that X did not go to school during the school year 2018-2019 and he did not go neither during the school year 2019-2020.

Various reasons were given to justify this non-attendance such as the bullying and the fact that, as the mother was detained and the father had to work, X had to babysit his siblings. [ 116 ] The parents have the responsibility to ensure the schooling of their children. Both parents consider that the schooling is important and want their son to succeed. But did they really take the steps to ensure his schooling? The Court is not convinced of that.

For sure, more serious steps should have been taken. [ 117 ] For a while the mother was detained and doing so, in the total incapacity to make sure that her son would go to school every day. During that time, the father had to work to feed his family. As the family had no babysitter the easy solution was to ask X to babysit. [ 118 ] X, who was scared to go to school, probably considered that this babysitting was the best opportunity not to go to school.

This situation was useful for the father and for X, but constitute obviously a situation of endangerment for X. [ 119 ] Not only, he did not progress in his schooling, but also he accumulated delays, and he continued to feel scared about his peers. Indeed, the situation of bullying had not been addressed and for X, more the time spent, more it was difficult to go back to school. Without proper interventions, the situation could not change. [ 120 ] The mother said that she did not know where she could seek help for that.

The father was surrounded for a while by the Social Services and the evidence shows that the service provided by the Social Services was intensive with the family. Despite that, the situation did not change. Two reasons can be identified for that.

The Court will come on this topic later. [ 121 ] Because of his non-attendance at school, the situation of X is endangered because of neglect in terms of educational needs. b- Physical abuse [ 122 ] Considering the absence of admission from the parties and the total absence of evidence on this aspect, the Court cannot conclude to a situation of endangerment for physical abuse. c- Serious behavioural issues [ 123 ] The evidence shows that X developed behavioural issues, and he put him at risk.

Situations he could be charged with criminal offences if he would be old enough, drugs consumption and gasoline inhalation, constitute situations of endangerment under

section 38 (

f) YPA. [ 124 ] During all the hearing which started in October 2019, until the end of the hearing in May 2020, his behaviour continued to be worrisome, even if his mother noted an improvement during the home visit in March 2020. d- Serious risk of neglect

[ 125 ] Even if the DYP did not allege this ground of endangerment, after hearing the evidence, the Court concludes that the situation of the child was endangered under this motive. Indeed, the parents had an alcohol consumption issues and this addiction prevented them from being able to be totally available to supervise and to impose a structure to X, who has important needs to be supervised. e- Evolution of the parents’ situation [ 126 ] Considering that this hearing took a long time for various reasons, the Court had opportunity to see the positive evolution in the situation of the parents.

First, they get separated and that helped a lot to reduce the impact of the toxic conjugal relationship on the children. [ 127 ] The mother found a job in [Company A] which prevented her from being present for her children. She had to ask family members to supervise her children, but it was not always positive. During the pandemic, the mother stopped working and she became more available and demonstrated a lot of interest for her children's well-being. [ 128 ] The father, who was very present during the mother’s detention, became less involved as soon as she got released.

A more intensive presence from his part would be for sure beneficial for the children. They need their mother, but they also need their father. The presence of both, even if they are separated, is beneficial for the children because each parent has his and her forces and are complementary. [ 129 ] Finally, the mother stopped drinking and improved her collaboration with the DYP workers.

She is open to receive services, to apply the strategies and she is taking good care of her two youngest children, reintegrated under her care when the pandemic started. [ 130 ] This evolution will have for sure, to be considered in the determination of the applicable measures. But before, this file raised concerns about the respect of the rights of the child and the Court will discuss about that before speaking about the measures. 2- Encroachment of rights a- The schooling [ 131 ] As mentioned and admitted by the parents and X, the youth did not go to school.

The Court declares the security and development endangered considering that the parents did not take strong measures to force their son to attend school. [ 132 ] That being said, it is important to consider the whole situation and the whole evidence provided and not contested. [ 133 ] One of the reasons alleged for the non-attendance was the bullying. This bullying was not only a fear based on a perception from X. Indeed, he had been hospitalized in City G for one week when he was 10 years old because he had been assaulted by his peers.

It is non-meaningless. [ 134 ] But, despite the interventions made by the Social Services in this situation, when X was medevaced as well as when X came back from City G, the evidence shows that the school did nothing to prevent such situation and to ensure X safety. His regular teacher was ignoring everything about this event.

If the teacher was unaware of such a serious situation, it raises concerns about the importance attached to this matter by the school direction. [ 135 ] The school cannot say that this situation was ignored considering the involvement of the Social Services in this situation and the communication that they had with the school authorities. But it is obvious that, the Social Services cannot resolve everything and what happened at school is not their responsibility.

What happened at school remain under the responsibility of the School authorities. [ 136 ] In this situation, the testimony of the teacher shows that the school took no steps, and also that the quality of the teaching is questionable.

This teacher had difficulty to express himself in English and was unable to transcript a website address to connect to the videoconference. [ 137 ] Another aspect which will have for sure to be verified by the School authorities is the fact that, according to the teacher’s testimony, the name of X had been withdrawn from the students list and the teacher was ignoring why. [ 138 ] The teacher confirmed that he never communicate directly with the DYP to inform about the school non-attendance. He only told the School authorities that X was not there, but at any time, stronger steps were taken.

This teacher had to be reminded about his obligations regarding school attendance and all situations which could lead to a situation of endangerment. [ 139 ] Indeed, the law imposes a responsibility to the professional who provides care and to each teacher to report without any delay the situation of a child each time he or she considers that the situation could be endangered under

section 38 or 38.1. This obligation is set out to

section 39, first paragraph YPA. 39. Every professional who, by the very nature of his profession, provides care or any other form of assistance to children and who, in the practice of his profession, has reasonable grounds to believe that the security or development of a child is or may be considered to be in danger within the meaning of

section 38 or 38.1, must bring the situation to the attention of the director without delay. The same obligation is incumbent upon any employee of an institution, any teacher, any person working in a childcare establishment or any policeman who, in the performance of his duties, has reasonable grounds to believe that the security or development of a child is or may be considered to be in danger within the meaning of the said provisions. [ 140 ] In September 2018, X was 10 years old and in May 2019, he was 11 years old. According to

section 14 of

Loi sur l’instruction publique , the school was and is still mandatory for him: 14. Every child resident in Québec shall attend school from the first day of the school calendar in the school year following that in which he attains 6 years of age until the last day of the school calendar in the school year in which he attains 16 years of age or at the end

of which he obtains a diploma awarded by the Minister, whichever occurs first. [ 141 ] During this time, he occupied his time, not to learn, but to criminal activities and to put himself in danger. [ 142 ] The lack of social resources and the low level of education in the North was denounced many times among others by the CDPDJ [19] , by Justice Viens in his report [20] and today the Court can only note that the situation over the years remains the same.

Sadly the professional directly in contact with the youths, with the future generations, do not take the necessary steps to improve the actual situation despite their legal obligations. [ 143 ] The Court blame the school of City B and their representatives for this situation in which the rights of the child have been wronged because of the non-respect of

section 39 YPA. This default constitute an offence under

section 134 YPA, and fine could be imposed. b- The delay of intervention from the part of the DYP [ 144 ] According to the evaluation report, the situation of X was reported on February 6, 2019, for physical abuse. The DYP worker ignores the result of the multi-sectorial interview made by the police officer. The allegations were serious, but the father was met only on May 1, 2019.

As mentioned no interventions were made before the situation of the two youngest was reported for a situation of neglect. [ 145 ] The fact that such a worrisome situation and serious allegations were not taken in charge more urgently by the DYP, prevent the children from being protected. [ 146 ] As mentioned, this situation, alleged in the Court application, did not benefit from the appropriate attention from the DYP.

If this physical abuse really happened and no interventions were made, the children were at risk that the situation occurred again. [ 147 ] Moreover, as this situation did not benefit from the appropriate attention, the DYP worker ignores everything about that and doing so, was unable to make any evidence about it. But despite being aware that no evidence could be provided, this ground was alleged in the situation of X and was also alleged in the situation of the two youngest for a risk of physical abuse. [ 148 ] As it had been alleged, Court’s time was used to try to make an evidence.

But when it had been the time to plead, the DYP lawyer had to admit that he had no comment on this topic. An appropriate assessment of the file would have prevented that everyone waste time. [ 149 ] But there is more. Indeed, it is unacceptable that such an important ground of endangerment did not benefit from an immediate intervention from the DYP.

If a physical abuse, which is not the first in the situation of the child, did not justify an immediate intervention, it is reasonable to ask what kind of situation could justify an immediate intervention. [ 150 ] But the non-contested evidence also shows that the situation of X was not reported only in February 2019, but it had been reported twice during the fall of 2018.

Indeed, Mr. [social worker 4], from the Social Services, testified very honestly and reported that the DYP had been informed about the school-attendance issues in October and November 2018, which was the beginning of the school year. [ 151 ] However, the DYP worker wrote, in her evaluation report, that the DYP was made aware in May 2019. So, what happened with the two reports made by professionals? Mr. [social worker 4] confirms that the Social Services had legal obligation to notify the DYP, and it is for this reason, they did it.

This information coming from professionals was reliable and justified at that time an intervention from the DYP. [ 152 ] For all those reasons, the Court has no hesitation to declare that the rights of X had been wronged because of the non- intervention made at the proper time. Without interventions, the situation can only degenerate and it is exactly what happened. c- The non-respect of the Court order [ 153 ] The

section 92 YPA mentions: 92. Where the tribunal orders the carrying out of a measure with regard to a child, it shall entrust the situation of the child to the director, who shall then see that the measure is carried out. Every institution and every educational body is required to take all available means to provide the services required to carry out the measures ordered. The same applies to every person and to every other body that agrees to apply such measures. [ 154 ] The

section 93 YPA indicates: 93. Every decision or order of the tribunal is enforceable as soon as it is rendered and any person contemplated in it must comply therewith without delay. [ 155 ] X waited more than two months before being entrusted to a rehabilitation centre as ordered by the Court, not once, but twice and despite the declaration that his rights have been wronged by the default to respect the Court order. [ 156 ] The reason given to justify this delay was the fact that no place was available at that time.

As expressed by Justice Dubois, a waiting list avoiding the application of a Court order is illegal [21] . Justice Dubois mentions in his decision: [18] En ne respectant ni la loi ni le jugement qu'il avait lui-même obtenu pendant plus de cinq mois, le Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse s'est non seulement compliqué la tâche au plan clinique, mais il a pris le risque de laisser aller la situation, en espérant qu'elle ne s'aggrave pas et qu'il n'ait pas à recommander d'autres mesures, plus radicales, pour assurer la protection de cette enfant.

[ 157 ] The two decisions were rendered for the same reason: the serious risk of harm for X if he remains in his family environment. Despite the application for provisional measures, despite the risk alleged and proven, despite those two orders, the situation in which he was at risk remained unresolved as he remained in an unsafe environment without the proper supervision and continued to put him at risk because of his behavioural issues. [ 158 ] Before the provisional measure is requested, X was seen sniffing gas a few times a day and a few days in a row.

He displayed suicidal ideation many times, and he ran away from the rehabilitation centre. Even if no decision were rendered, all those facts largely justified the placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 159 ] The DYP pleads that she had been prevented from respecting the decision because of the fault of [Center A] who had no places available in rehabilitation centres.

The DYP also admits that a lack of communication between DYP layer and DYP worker created a misunderstanding following the decision rendered on November 22, 2019. [ 160 ] The fact that the DYP would have been prevented by a third party from applying the Court decision is an unacceptable justification. [ 161 ]

Section 62 YPA indicates: 62. When the tribunal orders that a child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre or hospital centre or to a foster family, it shall require the director to designate the institution or an institution operating a child and youth protection centre that has recourse to foster families, that the child may be entrusted to. However, when making an order under the third paragraph of

section 91.1, the tribunal may designate, by name, the foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre. Furthermore, when it orders that the child be entrusted to a kinship foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, the tribunal shall designate the foster family by name. The director shall see to it that the conditions in which the child is placed are adequate. Every institution operating a rehabilitation centre or a hospital centre and designated by the director in accordance with this

section or subparagraph b of the fourth paragraph of

section 46 is bound to admit the child contemplated in the order. Such an order may be executed by any peace officer.

The institution operating a child and youth protection centre must send a copy of the child’s record to the executive director of the designated institution operating a rehabilitation centre. [ 162 ] In May 2019, Justice Godin rendered a decision [22] in which she mentions: [62] L’article 62 crée deux obligations pour le DPJ : premièrement, celle de désigner l’établissement qui fera le choix du lieu de résidence, et deuxièmement, celle de voir à ce que l’hébergement s’y effectue dans des conditions adéquates.

Le choix de cette ressource devra tenir compte des besoins et des droits de l’enfant (article 11.1 de la loi) sans que l’on puisse invoquer le manque de ressource pour ne pas exercer ses responsabilités. [65] Lorsqu’un enfant est confié à un centre de réadaptation, l’établissement doit héberger l’enfant. Le DPJ dispose d’un pouvoir de coercition envers lui. [66] Dans la décision Protection de la jeunesse-0979, le Tribunal s’exprimait ainsi : [28]

En cas de placement en milieu institutionnel, la Directrice a le devoir d’user de son pouvoir de coercition, même en cas de pénurie de ressources, et d’imposer à tout établissement le placement d’un enfant en centre de réadaptation ou en centre hospitalier . Elle ne peut, dans une telle situation, omettre, négliger ou refuser de le faire. Autrement, la Directrice lèse les droits de l’enfant. [69] La responsabilité appartient au DPJ, et cette responsabilité, il ne peut la déléguer à qui que ce soit.

Dans la présente affaire, le DPJ a délégué cette responsabilité au CRDI qui, lui, invoque qu’il n’a pas de pouvoir de coercition. Dans les faits, ce pouvoir de coercition est détenu par le DPJ et découle directement des responsabilités qui lui sont imposées par la loi. [ 163 ] The Court totally shares those comments. The responsibility is the one of the DYP.

If the DYP decided to create another organization and to delegate its responsibility to this organization, that change nothing to the accountability of the DYP. [ 164 ] Ms. [social worker 2] herself recognizes that she is the one who has to apply the Court decisions. No reason can justify that a child wait two months before a decision rendered in his situation be applied, moreover, when the order is to ensure his safety. [ 165 ] Ms. [social worker 2] was questioned about the tools that she has to force [Center A] to attribute a place in a rehabilitation centre upon request.

But the answer was not according to her obligation to apply a Court decision. Indeed, Ms. [social worker 2] explains that when there is such deadlock, she communicates with the [Center A] manager and she tries to find a solution with this person. All her testimony was regarding those discussions and negation, but she never spoke about any decision that she take according to

section 62 YPA. [ 166 ] The Court is totally aware of the challenges the DYP is facing in the North because mainly of the lack of human and material resources. But as repeated many times, those difficulties are not an excuse. In the application of a Court decision, the DYP has a performance obligation. The request made on November 22, 2019, to obtain a similar decision as the one rendered one month ago because the DYP alleging that this second decision will put pressure on [Center A] demonstrate the lack of power from the DYP. [ 167 ] Moreover, the question of this lack of power from the DYP to implement the Court decision also took an important quantity of

time during this hearing. Let us remind that the provisional measure was requested for serious reasons, and in October as well as in November, the Court agreed with the DYP’s position. Doing so, from a legal point of view, the situation was not complex. But despite this simplicity, it had been needed to make an important evidence about the non-implementation of a Court order.

During that time, the Court did not heard any other file, the DYP workers were retained in front of the Court and prevented them from taking care of other situations, and the lawyers did not answered to their other clients. [ 168 ] Ms. [social worker 5]’s testimony provides another perspective on this issue. According to her, the DYP is responsible for an important part of the delay because [Center A] was not made aware of the situation of X before the first provisional measure.

Ms. [social worker 2] concedes that it had been an issue and since then the directive changed. [ 169 ] But despite this delay, the question of available beds had been an issue in this file. The problem is the same as the one mentioned before. The DYP has to impose her authority and to make the appropriate pressure to have the number of places that she needs according to the whole situation of Youth Protection on her territory.

If the proportion of children reported to DYP in the [region A] is higher than anywhere else in the province of Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the need for places in rehabilitation centres is proportionally higher than in any other region. [ 170 ] After hearing the testimony of those two managers, the DYP and [OrganizationCenter A], and after having noted the inconsistency, the Court can easily conclude that an important communication issue exist between those two organizations who should both be guided by the best interest of the child and the respect of Court orders. [ 171 ] If an organism, such as [Center A] decides to render service to the DYP, he should do it properly or stop immediately.

The DYP, on her side, being responsible for the application of the Court order has to impose her clinical point of view and her authority. The Court cannot assist anymore to such a ping-pong match. [ 172 ] Still about this topic, the Court is concerned by the default to provide the psychological evaluation ordered by the Court in March and October 2016.

Not only was this evaluation ordered, but the evidence provided today revealed that his mental health is not getting better. [ 173 ] Ms. [social worker 2] recognizes that this file should never have been closed as long as the psychological evaluation has not been done. d- Applicable measures [ 174 ] X is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for quite one year. The beginning of this placement had been difficult as X had difficulty to adapt to the routine. In March, when he came for a home visit, his mother noted an improvement.

He respected the rules well, and the DYP has nothing wrong to report about this visit. [ 175 ] At the rehabilitation centre, he was able to go to school. He testifies that he went regularly and being in another village was positive on this aspect because he was not scared to see the other youths who assaulted him. Despite the description made by the DYP worker X was very talkative at Court hearing and he expressed his desire to go back home.

He committed to respect all the rules that could be imposed to him. [ 176 ] The non-contested evidence also shows that X run away frequently from the centre and that he put him at risk during those periods. For sure, it is not at all the objective of a placement in a rehabilitation centre. He had been placed there for his safety, to receive clinical services and to be protected.

For sure he received some services, but not as much as he was supposed to. [ 177 ] After one year in such situation, between not being in a safe place in a Group Home in City A or being at home with his mother who made very great improvements, without any hesitation, the Court concludes that his place is now with his family. [ 178 ] For sure, as he did not receive all the services that he needed, those services will have to be provided in his community.

An important team work will have to be done to ensure his schooling, his safety at school and to be sure that he has a strict structure at home. [ 179 ] A very clear intervention plan will have to be prepared, followed and adapted to the evolution of the situation. A better communication will also have to be implemented between all the stakeholders. The parents’ collaboration will be necessary and that of the mother is acquired. [ 180 ] But the father has to be more involved in the follow-up because his presence is very important for his son.

As he mentions, the schooling is very important for him, but it is not enough to say that in front of the Court. Now it is time for the father to demonstrate to his son how he is concerned by his whole situation including his schooling. e- Correctives measures [ 181 ] As the Court declared that the situation of X has been wronged by the DYP and by the school, the Court will impose corrective measures appropriate to the specific situation of X.

Indeed, if appropriate measures would have been implemented at the proper moment, meaning as soon as the beginning of the school year 2018-2019, X would probably have been prevented from being in need of rehabilitation services. [ 182 ] The first aspect to be worked on is, as mentioned, the structure at home. The mother is now in a good situation to be able to resume the care of her son, but she obviously needs a close follow-up and close support. She should be helped to implement a structure with strict rules. What is waiting from X should be clearly explained by the DYP and implemented by the mother.

A very close follow- up should be offered to make sure that the structure answer the needs of the youth and that it is well respected. This service should be provided by an external educator.

[ 183 ] The DYP also has an important role to play to facilitate the return at school. The Court will order that the DYP participate with the school to the implementation of a reintegration plan and of an intervention plan to make sure that the return at school be a positive experience for X. [ 184 ] The psychological evaluation which was supposed to be requested since 2016 will have to be done no later than January 31, 2021, and all the recommendations implemented without any delay.

The DYP will be responsible for making sure that the recommendations concerning the schooling be implemented as any other recommendations regarding any kind of follow-up to be provided by any professional. [ 185 ] Considering this file has already been closed without the services being provided properly, the Court will send this decision to the CDPDJ and will order the DYP to provide the CDPDJ with the evidence that the measures ordered by the Court are implemented by sending a copy of the psychological evaluation, the DYP's intervention plan, the school’s intervention plan, and the confirmation that the services recommended are provided. [ 186 ] Regarding the non-respect of the decision rendered on October 25, 2020, and on November 22, 2020, the Court will blame the DYP for her lack of intervention in this situation and for her default to apply the power that the YPA give under

section 62. Such situation could occur again and the DYP is invited to seriously think about the measures she has to implement to avoid such situation. By chance, nothing wrong happened to X while he was not at the Group Home when he was supposed to be. The DYP is invited to think about the possible consequences in other situations. [ 187 ] The DYP is also blamed for the lack of supervision in the two Group Homes where X was entrusted (City B and City A). When a child is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, it is because his situation justify a close supervision.

In the situation of X, it was for the suicidal ideation, the criminal offences and the drug consumption. He had been entrusted because he put himself in danger. But it is difficult to understand that, even if he was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for his safety, it was so easy for him to continue to put him at risk. In such circumstances, the benefice to be in a Group Home is what? There is none. The Court noted many times how it is easy to run away from a Group Home in the [region A]. Such situation is not seen in the South.

The supervision is different and adapted to the specific need of the youths entrusted to rehabilitation down South. There is no reason that the children in the North do not benefit from the application of

section 62 YPA, which ensures that the foster care is provided under appropriate conditions. The Court invites the DYP to seriously think about a solution to this too frequent issue before a sad situation happened. [ 188 ] Regarding schooling, the Court will order that, according to

section 92 YPA, the school collaborate actively to the reintegration of X and implements all the recommendations made by the psychologist to facilitate his schooling. [ 189 ] Also, regarding the fact that the name of X would have been withdrawn from the student list of the school according to the teacher’s testimony, the Court will order the school to provide the CDPDJ with the explanation for this situation. [ 190 ] The situation of bullying is worrisome and measures will have to be taken in the situation of X to address this issue and to avoid the recurrence of this situation.

As corrective measures, the Court will order the school to provide the CDPDJ with the plan which will be implemented to protect X against such bullying. [ 191 ] Finally, the Court will order the school to remind to each teacher and other school staff their obligations under YPA and specifically under sections 39 and 134. The school will also have to provide the CDPDJ with the measures taken to respect this order.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 192 ] GRANTS the application; [ 193 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2007, are endangered under paragraphs (b) (1) iii, (b) (2) and (f) [23] of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 194 ] DECLARES that the rights of X have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 195 ] DECLARES that the rights of X have been wronged by the School of City B; [ 196 ] BLAMES the Director of Youth Protection for the lack of services and the lack of supervision provided in X’s situation; [ 197 ] BLAMES the Director of Youth Protection for the default to implement the Court decisions; [ 198 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until December 18, 2020; [ 199 ] ORDERS that X be reintegrated under his mother’s care on December 18, 2020; [ 200 ] ORDERS that the measures be taken properly to reintegrate X at school and that he attend a school on a daily basis; [ 201 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate closely with the school for the reintegration and after the reintegration; [ 202 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the services of an external educator at least once a week until the end of the measures; [ 203 ] ORDERS that the X receive all health care services required by his situation; [ 204 ] ORDERS that the X receive a drug addiction assessment if not already done and that he receive a follow-up regarding his addiction;

[ 205 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to X’s entire medical, Social Services and schooling files; [ 206 ] ORDERS that X and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 207 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 208 ] ORDERS that an interpreter or a community worker be present to each meeting with the parents and X; [ 209 ] ORDERS that X and his parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 210 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviours in presence of the child; [ 211 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their consumption issues; [ 212 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents and the youth’s presence at the appointments with the professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 213 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 214 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES: [ 215 ] ORDERS that X benefit from a psychological assessment no later than January 31, 2021; [ 216 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the psychologist with the medical, Social Services and schooling files of X and with a copy of this decision; [ 217 ] ORDERS that recommendations set out by the psychologist are implemented without any delay including any other evaluation that could be suggested; [ 218 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the school with the recommendations relevant to the schooling and to make sure that those recommendations be implemented by the school; [ 219 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to prepare an intervention plan in the situation of X no later than January 16, 2021; [ 220 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to participate to the elaboration of the reintegration plan and intervention plan with the school; [ 221 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse with the evidence that the measures ordered by the Court are implemented by sending copy of psychological evaluation, Director of Youth Protection’s intervention plan, school’s intervention plan, and the confirmation that the services recommended are provided; [ 222 ] ORDERS the school of City B to collaborate actively to the reintegration of X and to implement all the recommendations made by the psychologist to facilitate his schooling; [ 223 ] ORDERS the school to provide the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse with the explanation about the fact that the name of X would have been withdrawn from the students list; [ 224 ] ORDERS the school to provide the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse with the plan which will be implement to protect X against bullying; [ 225 ] ORDERS the School to remind to each teacher and other school staff their obligations under YPA and specifically under sections 39 and 134 and to provide t

[…]