2019 QCCQ 14838, 2019 QCCQ 14838

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911147 2019 QCCQ 14838 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002130-174 DATE: November 21, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 23, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [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 , deceased 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 extend a decision rendered on July 25, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with a possible reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, until July 12, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his mother and that the placement in a rehabilitation centre has to be prolonged until July 31, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she challenges the measures. She would like her son be entrusted to his aunt, Ms. C. [ 4 ] X is present and represented by Me Migué. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he also asks to be entrusted to his aunt, Ms. C. History of the situation [ 5 ] On November 21, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 13 years old. His father was deceased. His mother suffered from schizophrenia which affected her parental capacities.

The mother did not respect her medical prescription. The situation of X and his younger brother was known from the DYP since April 2014. Voluntary measures had been signed and since that time, the children were entrusted to a foster family. X had behavioural issues (sniffing gasoline, aggressiveness, drug consumption, criminal activities and not attending school). Since October 3, 2017, X was entrusted to the rehabilitation centre in Town A. The mother had irregular contacts with her son.

X was diagnosed with ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) since 2015, but he did not have medication before he went to the rehabilitation centre. The Court noted that before going to the rehabilitation centre, X had been entrusted to many different foster families and that it was urgent for him to be assessed by a child psychiatrist to insure that ADHD and ODD be medicated the right way. The Court declared that the security and development of X were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it.

The Court ordered that he receive medical care for his ADHD. [ 6 ] On July 25, 2018 , the Court was seized with the revision and ratified a draft agreement. The parties recognized that X stayed at the rehabilitation centre since the last order, but he still had aggressive behaviours. He had some home visits with his grandmother and with his aunt and it went well. The contacts with his mother were always irregular. The Court maintained the same measures, knowing a placement in a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, the whole until July 12, 2019.

[ 7 ] On July 12, 2019 , because of the weather conditions, the family was not able to travel and the Court maintained the measures under a provisional order. [ 8 ] On September 9, 2019 , because X’s brother was hospitalized in Town B following an accident with a firearm, the file was postponed and X was entrusted to his aunt, Ms. C. Facts [ 9 ] As soon as July 27, 2018 (2 days following the last decision), X was entrusted to his aunt, Ms. C.

The report mentioned that this decision was made by [Center A]. [ 10 ] Before the hearing, the Court asks that [a Center A] representative be summoned to testify about the reason for this so quick reintegration. [ 11 ] Mr. [social worker 2] was present by videoconference to testify. At the moment of the event, he was the Director of Town A’s rehabilitation centre. He explained that the decision to entrust X to his aunt had been made before the previous hearing and everybody agreed with that. He said that at that time, no improvement was noted in X’s behaviour.

He explained that it is not easy for an adolescent to live with other youths who also have their personal issues. According to Mr. [social worker 2], when no improvement is noted, after a certain period of time, it is necessary to question the opportunity of the placement and in X’s situation, they concluded that he would be more in his interest to be entrusted to his aunt, who is working at the rehabilitation centre. [ 12 ] Mr. [social worker 2] is not a representative of [Center A], despite the request of the Court. That being said, his testimony demonstrated that he knows X very well.

The Court took advantage of his presence to ask him, according to his knowledge, how X could react if he would be entrusted back to a rehabilitation centre, knowing that the duration of the previous order was not respected. [ 13 ] Mr. [social worker 2] answered that, according to him, it is the last thing to do. He knows Ms.

C very well and he considers her as being the only one able to foster and to succeed with X. [ 14 ] Considering his answer, the Court give to the parties the opportunity to discuss about the situation and they came to an agreement. [ 15 ] Despite the agreement, the DYP worker testified to explain why she wrote that the decision to entrust X to his aunt, two days after the decision, was made by [Center A]. She was not the worker present at the last hearing.

When she started the writing of the report, she tried to understand the situation, and she saw an email from [Center A], and she concluded that the decision was made by them. [ 16 ] The worker present at that time, also testified and explained that despite the content of the draft agreement, the decision was made previously as explained by Mr. [social worker 2] and everyone agreed with the immediate integration in a foster family, but everyone signed the draft agreement as written and the Court ratified it. [ 17 ] The Court reminds to the party that an important principle of the YPA is the comprehension of the process and the adhesion to the measures taken.

Such situation contributes to the misunderstanding described many times by different Inquiry Commissions, the last one being the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Quebec [2] . [ 18 ] As mentioned, following Mr. [social worker 2]’s testimony, the parties reached an agreement. The main concern of the DYP was the fact that Ms. C ensure that X took his medication. Discussion took place, and Ms.

C confirms that she already made an appointment to renew X’s prescription and she engaged herself to make sure he will take it. [ 19 ] The evidence also revealed that the mother is still not involved in her children's lives. During the previous years, X was entrusted to many different foster families, including aunts or any other members of the community. [ 20 ] Around spring 2019, he was entrusted to Ms. D and at that place he was authorized to stay outside until 11 PM, even if there is school the day after.

Questioned on this aspect, the DYP worker explains that it is frequent in the North considering the night arrives later. Also, Ms. D gave up a few weeks after X’s integration because she suspected him of having stolen cannabis from her son who lives in the house. Questioned on the fact that a foster family could have cannabis at home, the DYP worker answer that it was not the property of Ms.

D, but of her son. [ 21 ] When the Court entrusted children to a foster family, the Court should be confident that the rules in the house will respect the safety and the development of the children, in a way to apply the principles of the law which are to put an end to a situation in which the children are in danger. The Court cannot imagine that the reason why the child was taken off from his parents be continued in a foster family.

It is an aberration! [ 22 ] Considering the lack of stability and the feeling of reject during the previous years and months, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the parties and considers that the best place for X is with his aunt who is willing and able to care for him. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2004, remain endangered; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS X under the care of Ms.

C, as foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 26 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and services, specifically regarding his ADHD and ODD, including a follow-up and medication if prescribed;

[ 27 ] ORDERS that X receive and take his medication as prescribe by the doctor; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Ms. C engages herself to make sure that X will take his medication properly; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school on a daily basis; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through Social Services concerning her personal issues; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, his family and his foster family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in presence of the youth; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigation in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 37 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 38 ] ORDERS the execution of the present decision by any peace officer; [ 39 ] 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; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Dates of hearing: November 20 and 21, 2019