2020 QCCQ 12753, 2020 QCCQ 12753

Protection de la jeunesse — 209321 2020 QCCQ 12753 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000929-197 DATE: March 17, 2020 (written judgment rendered on June 2, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A, (Quebec) Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A, (Quebec) Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A, (Quebec) 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 July 9, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to Ms.

C and authorized a reintegration at the parents’ place as soon as the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her parents and requests that the adolescent be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, until January 31, 2021. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Boumeftah. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she asks that she be entrusted to a foster family rather than a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] Even if dully served, the father is absent and not represented.

Considering the best interest of the adolescent and the consent of the parties, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] X, who is now 15 years old, is present and represented by Me Sinnett. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered, but asks to remain under her parent’s care. History of the situation [ 6 ] On January 21, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure, entrusted the adolescent to a foster family and ordered a prohibition of contact between the adolescent and Mr. D. [ 7 ] On February 28, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection.

X was quite 14 years old. She was in relationship with a 21-year-old man who was violent toward her. She did not go to school on a regular basis for the last two years. She did not sleep at her parents’ place regularly, and they admitted not being able to impose structure to her. Even if the parents agreed to receive help, they stopped collaborating with the DYP. The foster family where she was entrusted to, gave up saying being unable to answer her specific needs.

The Court declared that the security and development of the adolescent were endangered and entrusted her to a foster family with a possible reintegration. The Court also ordered a prohibition of contact between the adolescent and Mr. D, the service of an external educator, an assessment for the youth’s hearing difficulties and a psychological assessment for sexual and physical abuses, the whole until the end of February 2, 2020. [ 8 ] On April 30, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the adolescent to Ms. C and maintained the prohibition of contact with Mr. D.

[ 9 ] On July 9, 2019 , the Court was seized with the revision. On March 5, 2019, five days after the previous decision, the DYP learned that X was staying at Ms. C’s place, but located X only on March 21. She was doing well there so, she was entrusted there even if Ms. C could not be accredited as a foster family. X improved her school atten-dance, but failed her school year. The psychological assessment was planned, and the hearing evaluation should take place in August 2019. The Court entrusted the adoles-cent to Ms. C and authorized the reintegration as soon as possible.

The Court ordered a psychological and a hearing assessment, maintained the prohibition of contacts and ordered the services of an external educator, the whole until June 12, 2020. [ 10 ] On August 14, 2019 , Dr. Joseph Beltempo signed a psychological assessment of X. He concludes that X was in a “period of post-traumatic stress reaction” and recommends the following: […] We strongly recommend X to be referred to the psychologist at the A Health Center, in particular, Dr. Dominique Paradis, in order to work with her therapeutically to deal with the depression and trauma .

Given X’s severe psychological (traumas) injuries, we suspect that engaging in Psychotherapy will probably be slow and that she will be quite cautious as she was with the Examiner. Moreover, X is at high risk for acting out or withdrawing into a state of deeper almost unresponsive type of depression . […] Dr. Beltempo also referred her to Dr. Larose, child psychiatrist who was able to see X the day after. Facts [ 11 ] The beginning of the placement at Ms. C went well, and X increase her school attendance. Later on, the situation changed and X started not respecting the curfew and reduced her school attendance.

In September, Ms. C informed the DYP that she was not fit to take care of the adolescent. [ 12 ] In the interval, as recommended by Dr. Beltempo, X met with Dr. Larose who diagnosed PTSD, prescribed medication and explained the importance for her to be protected from all kinds of violence and alcohol consumption. [ 13 ] Doing so, the parents and X were met and they agreed to impose a structure to ensure the safety of their daughter and X agreed to collaborate and to respect the rules. [ 14 ] Unfortunately, X did not.

On October 20, 2019, a police intervention was required for a family altercation, while X was intoxicated by alcohol. On December 14, another intervention was needed as the adolescent was destroying the house. [ 15 ] In December, X was supposed to have a follow-up with Dr. Larose, but she did not show up and was nowhere to be found. Also, X did not collaborate at all to meet with Dr. Paradis. She did the same with the external educator. [ 16 ] X did not receive services from Dr. Paradis as this doctor makes follow-ups on a voluntary basis.

As X refuses this help, nothing can be done for her. [ 17 ] X and her parents were met to obtain their collaboration. The parents are always present and open to discuss, but they do not take steps to correct the situation.

X on her side is never present to those meetings. [ 18 ] The parents recognize fully the poor attendance at school, but justify it by the fact that they need X at home to babysit their younger children. [ 19 ] Regarding the medication, the mother told her daughter not to take it because she looked on Google and saw that this medication could have some side effects. [ 20 ] The DYP worker is conscious about the bonds between X and her parents and plan to organize frequents contacts, but for the next months she needs to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and to go to school. [ 21 ] On October 9, 2019, the situation degenerated at school when X assault another student and destroyed objects in the classroom.

The parents were supposed to present themselves at school to discuss about the situation, but they did not and on October 30, the DYP was informed that X was not attending school. [ 22 ] The DYP worker has a discussion with the school around every two or three weeks. There is no intervention plan made by the DYP neither by the school. Questioned about a possible learning difficulty, the DYP worker confirmed that it had been discussed with the school, but considering X is not attending school, they are unable to assess her learning capacities. [ 23 ] X met the hearing specialist in August 2019.

The DYP worker knows that X has a hearing difficulty, but ignores the exact issue and how it could affect the youth nor if the specialist made recommendations, because she does not have access to the medical file. She asked X to sign consent, but X refused to collaborate. The DYP worker called the hearing specialist to know when she will come in Town A, but never to ask information about X’s situation.

Despite the Court order, the DYP worker also ignores if X need to be seen again by the specialist and if she had been seen since August 2019. [ 24 ] The mother confirmed that she asked X not to take the medication prescribed by Dr. Larose because she considers the bad behaviour of her daughter was due to this medication. Invited to discuss about the side effects with professionals, the mother refused. [ 25 ] The DYP worker asks that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for her to learn to deal with her emotions and to go to school.

She recognizes that the collaboration from X will be needed to achieve those goals and for now this collaboration is not present. [ 26 ] In her testimony, the mother commits herself to impose a safe routine to her daughter and to make sure that she will go to school. She will also attend the medical appointments with her. She wants to work with the DYP worker mostly with Ms. A who sometimes comes in Town A. Analysis

[ 27 ] The Court notes an important lack of intensity in the services provided to the adolescent. X is not going to school for the last three years. She is at her parents’ place since September 2019, and she is still not going to school except few days and she had outburst and police intervention was needed. [ 28 ] The DYP worker explained that despite this situation, which was not getting better, it was decided not to seize the Court with an application for provisional measures.

The worker kept hoping that the situation could change despite the lack of collaboration described. [ 29 ] Knowing the situation, which remained the same for the last three years, it was not time to discuss nor to wait for a collaboration, it was time to intervene on the different difficulties. [ 30 ] The same lack of intensity is noted regarding the health follow-up. As for example, the Court ordered a hearing assessment, but the DYP worker is not aware if the assessment is finished, if yes, what are the recommendations, and the impact of this hearing issue on her learning capacities.

The DYP worker never judged pertinent to communicate with the specialist. [ 31 ] As for the other aspects, most of the answer provided by the DYP worker were “ I don’t know,” as if she never considered relevant for her follow-up to know the total portrait of the situation. [ 32 ] As mentioned there is no collaboration from X nor from the parents.

Even if the mother says that she will impose to her daughter to go to school, it is impossible to trust her as X is not going for three years. [ 33 ] In such a serious situation, a drastic intervention had to be taken and it is impossible to understand why it was not done before.

It is obvious that this situation, properly addressed in a timely manner, would have been resolved for many months. [ 34 ] Today, the situation degenerated so much that the Court has no other choice than to entrust the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre to make sure she will receive the services she needs. [ 35 ] She will have to work on herself, to open up about her emotions, to collaborate with the services and to attend school. [ 36 ] It is disappointing to see a situation coming to this point because it has not been addressed when that was necessary.

And despite the fact that the situation of the youth was entrusted to the DYP, many aspects remained still unknown from the DYP worker. If an intervention plan had been made as it should be, it would have helped to have a better knowledge and follow-up.

The set objectives would have been known and the steps to achieve the goals would have been clearly exposed and understood. [ 37 ] In such situation, the Court declared that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the DYP on the following aspect: - Default of establishing an intervention plan; - Default of seizing the Court when the situation degenerated; - Default to take steps to ensure the adolescent’s schooling; - Default to insure the medical follow-up; - Default to respect the Court order; - Default to provide the intensity of service required by the situation. [ 38 ] Considering those wronged rights, the Court will order corrective measures and will notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse and to the Commission special sur les droits des enfants et la protection de la jeunesse.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the application; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to a rehabilitation centre; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and services required by her situation, notably a follow-up with the youth psychiatrist and the hearing specialist; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school on a daily basis; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 47 ] ORDERS a prohibition of contact between the adolescent and Mr. D; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from any form of violence in the presence of the adolescent; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the adolescent and her parents be

determined by the Director of Youth Protection, and ORDERS that it be as soon as possible; [ 50 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services or ano-ther resource deemed appropriate, concerning their parental skills and personal issues; [ 51 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the youth’s and the parents’ presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement; [ 52 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and the family; CONSIDERING that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged, AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES, THE COURT: [ 53 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse and to the Commission speciale sur les droits des enfants et la protection de la jeunesse; [ 54 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to establish an intervention plan within a maximum of one month following the date of this written decision, and to notify a copy in the Court file and to the adolescent’s lawyer; [ 55 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to assume the professional fees to offer a psychological follow-up to the youth in the private sector if the public sector cannot offer it in a reasonable delay considering the present pandemic; [ 56 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to obtain a written evaluation from the hearing specialist within one month following the written decision; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the recommendations made by the hearing specialist, which requi-re a medical consultation in person, be implemented within a maximum of one month following the end of the state of emergency declared by the Government of Quebec which actually prevents partially the travelling between the South and the North; [ 58 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate to the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 60 ] The whole until January 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the child Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: March 17, 2020