2021 QCCQ 15246, 2021 QCCQ 15246

Protection de la jeunesse — 219049 2021 QCCQ 15246 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002672-217 DATE: October 19, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on August 27, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre until January 31, 2021, and allowed the immediate reintegration of the youth into a foster family when the situation allows for it. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her parents and asks that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, until August 31, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Michaël Pereira. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered, she agrees with the measures and wants to have contacts with Monica. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On July 8, 2005 , the Court was seized with an application for protection.

X was 3 months old. The parents had alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. The mother admitted having been physically abusive toward the child. The mother was suicidal. The parents did not have their own house. They were living with the father’s family and the crying of the baby brought some negative comments from the family members which affected the mother. The baby was entrusted to her maternal aunt in another village. The parents confirmed their intention to collaborate and to work hard to resume the care of their child.

The Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family for 5 months. The Court also ordered that services be provided to the family for one year, that the mother be medically and psychologically evaluated and that the parents participate to a marital counselling and parental course. [ 7 ] On March 29, 2006 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family as provisional measures. [ 8 ] On May 9, 2006 , the Court revised the situation and entrusted the child for 6 months to a foster family.

The Court also ordered that the mother benefit from a regular follow-up with a psychiatrist.

[ 9 ] On May 1, 2007 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family as provisional measures and recommended that the mother be evaluated by a psychologist regarding her parental capacities. [ 10 ] On June 19, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. After being entrusted to a fos-ter family, X came back living with her parents at the beginning of 2007. In April 2007, an argument occurred between the mother and the father’s family where the couple was still living. The mother would like to move to Town B with her son and to leave her daughter under the father’s care. The family disagreed with the mother’s plan.

The child was entrusted to a foster home as immediate protective measures. The psychological evaluation of the mother was still not done yet. The DYP asked for a long-term placement, but considering the evidence provided about the foster family, the Court refused the long-term placement and entrusted the child to a foster family only for 3 months. The Court also recommended that the mother be assessed by a psychologist. [ 11 ] On September 19, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. The mother had moved to Town B with her son. She still displayed anger management issues.

The father was still living in region A with his mother and did not have the capacity to take care of the child. The Court noted that the services were not provided adequately to the parents, but considering the bonds created between X and her foster parents, the Court ordered a placement until majority. [ 12 ] On September 23, 2019 , Dr. Beltempo, psychologist assessed X. His mandate was to make recommendations regarding her depression symptoms. Dr. Beltempo recommended: 1. For purposes of helping X to process and understand her depression as well as social anxiety, we refer X to Ms.

Dominique Paradis, psychologist, for psychotherapy . We note that progress may be slow before we expect any significant changes. We should also respect her pace. Moreover, I would suggest that Ms. Dominique Paradis, psychologist, assess X cognitively (WISC) because it may explain problems related to her poor school attendance and performance. I am curious whether she has any sort of learning disabilities. This could not be assessed in this psychological assessment, but I would encourage Ms. Paradis to do so. 2.

Preferably, we aim these efforts of intervention in the early stages using supportive and active listening techniques rather than structure approaches. 3. Eventually, she would need a skill-building approach such as dialectical behaviour therapy ; for example, the Mindfulness and then Emotional Regulation modules . 4. X would need to be referred to Dr. Larose, child psychiatrist, along with this assessment report and background information. 5.

With assistance of the Social Workers, X needs to be examined by a dentist not only for her baby front tooth, but also for an overall dental examination. [ 13 ] On June 29, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures but X was AWOL, so a warrant was issued. On July 9, 2020, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre as provisional measures. [ 14 ] On August 27, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. X was now 15 years old. The evidence showed that she displayed behavioural issues and put her at risk. She was pregnant.

She did not receive a regular psychological follow-up due to a lack of service in her community. She went through 20 different foster families. The father did not collaborate with the DYP. The mother still displayed alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until January 31, 2021, and authorized a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it.

The Court also ordered that she receive medical services, notably a psychiatric and psychological follow-up, that she attend school, that she receive services from an external educator, withdrawn the attributes authorities from the parents, forbid the contacts between X and C, the whole until August 31, 2021. [ 15 ] On May 18, 2021 , the Court entrusted the youth to the kinship foster family of D and E as a provisional measure. Facts and Analysis [ 16 ] As ordered, X had been entrusted to the Center A.

The adolescent had to work on her behavioural issues, on abusive relationships and she had to address her traumas. The educators confirmed that she responded well to the structure of the Group Home and that she had a good behaviour. [ 17 ] A request was made for her to receive a psychological follow-up through the CAVAC. [ 18 ] In October 2020, X had a home visit at her aunt’s place, Ms. F in region B, in a way to verify if a progressive reintegration could start. The visit went very well, but on her way back to Town A, she stopped in Town B and run away.

Due to her absence for more than 14 days, the rehabilitation centre decided to give her place to another youth. X was 2 weeks in run away. During that time she was at her violent boyfriend’s place despite the prohibition of contacts and his criminal conditions. [ 19 ] On November 2, 2020, while she was still in Town B, she went to the nursing because she had been seriously beaten and abused by her boyfriend.

X told the nurse that she was running away because she was anxious to go back to Town A because she was bullied there. [ 20 ] The medical team informed the DYP about X’s high level of stress and also mentioned that even the trip to Town B could be dangerous for her and her baby. Doing so, the DYP took the decision to immediately start the integration with Ms. F. [ 21 ] On [...], 2021, X gave birth to her daughter. When X came back home with the baby, the relation with her foster mother degenerated due to the extra responsibilities with the new born.

Meetings took place to avoid that the placement fail, but on April 26, 2021, Ms. F gave up. [ 22 ] X was entrusted to her paternal aunt, Ms. D for the night. Ms. D confirmed being available to foster her on a long term basis,

but the DYP had concerns. Indeed, X was fostered there for 12 years, but she had to be removed because she was a victim of sexual gesture from her cousin. X also confirmed that she would like to stay there. Doing so, a meeting took place with the whole family. The DYP’s concerns were exposed. X confirmed that she feel safe there and that she does not want to go anywhere else. Her aunt and uncle explained what kind of safety plan they put in place to ensure X’s safety and the cousin apologized.

Following that meeting, it was decided to maintain X at her aunt’s place. [ 23 ] The couple confirmed being very happy to have X and her baby with them. They would like to support her with her parental responsibilities and on all the other aspects of her life. [ 24 ] Regarding X’s medical follow-up, she met with Dr. Larose, child psychiatrist, in November 2020. In December, she was not able to attend because she was in Town C to give birth. [ 25 ] A request was made in December 2020, for X to receive the services of a psychologist. The psychologist was on a sick leave and was coming back in March 2021.

The psychologist confirmed that X was on a waiting list and would be supposed to start the follow-up in August 2021, but before it started, X informed the DYP worker that she does not want to see a psychologist. She mentioned that she just want to meet with Dr. Larose and with the external educator. [ 26 ] X started to receive services from an external educator in April 2021. She works on her drugs consumption, her parental abilities, healthy love relationship and her behavioural issues. [ 27 ] The mother still struggles with alcohol consumption, conjugal violence issues and instability.

She moved from Town B to Town A in a way to ovoid consumption. Indeed, that helped her to change her way of life and was able to reduce her alcohol consumption. She started a new relationship, but this one was also tinted by violence. [ 28 ] 2 weeks before the hearing, the mother ended her relation and came back living in Town C. Doing so, she is now closer to her daughter and it is known that she can reduce her alcohol consumption in this village. [ 29 ] The mother was in agreement with the placement of X at Ms. D and Mr. E’s place.

She considered that they were able to provide an appropriate lifestyle for X and her baby. On her side, the mother honestly says that she is not in a position to care for her daughter and granddaughter. [ 30 ] The father is generally residing in Town D, but he is unreachable. According to Ms. D and Mr. E, he would be aware of the placement and would be in total agreement. [ 31 ] After a few months being placed in her home town with her previous foster family and close to her relatives, a great improvement in her situation was noted.

She was able to stabilize her behaviour, and the suicidal ideation decreased. [ 32 ] Unfortunately, in August, the family situation at the foster home changed. Ms. D went to Town E with her son to register him at school. During that time, her husband started to drink and X became scared. She went at Ms. F. When Ms. D came back, she ended her relation with her spouse and moved to her mother’s place where there is not enough place for X and her baby. [ 33 ] X expresses being well at Ms. E’s place. If Ms.

D is able to have her own house as she requested, X would be happy to move with her, but it could take a long time before having a new house. [ 34 ] The DYP is concerned by the fact that Mr. E gave up on fostering X a few months ago. Doing so, the DYP will offer weekly support to be alert of any risk of difficulty.

Also, the services of an external educator will continue to be provided. [ 35 ] Considering this commitment from the DYP, the Court considers that the recommendation is in the best interest of X. [ 36 ] X started school in August 2021, and her baby is attending daycare. [ 37 ] The DYP also asks a prohibition of contacts between X and C as well as between X and Ms. H, C’s mother. G has to respect criminal condition not to communicate with X. Despite those criminal conditions and considering the events of October 2020, the Court has no hesitation to order such measures. [ 38 ] Regarding Ms.

H, the request is justified by the facts that when the DYP and the police was looking for X in October, Ms. H was well aware of that fact and she knew where X was and in which conditions. Not only did she take no steps to protect her, but more over she prevents the DYP from finding X. Since the baby was born, and Ms. H is the grandmother, X came in Town A to show her the baby. Ms. H used this opportunity to take the baby, and the police intervention was needed for X to have her baby back. [ 39 ] X clearly expresses her desire to continue to have contact with Ms.

H, but this latter is obviously not protective toward X. X should be protected against any kind of pressure from Ms. H. Doing so, the Court totally agree with the DYP’s proposal which is to allow contacts only at A, in X’s environment. The DYP offer to pay for Ms. H’s transportation and lodging during that time. This suggestion is more than reasonable and will be appropriate to protect X.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the application; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth be supported by the Director of Youth Protection into a boarding plan, a program geared to develop skills and autonomy in order to prepare her for her majority;

[ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth not come into contact with Mr. C and Ms. H, except re-garding Ms. H, according to the modalities imposed by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 51 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 53 ] THE WHOLE until August 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 19, 2021