2021 QCCQ 17304, 2021 QCCQ 17304

Protection de la jeunesse — 2110069 2021 QCCQ 17304 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001898-151 DATE: November 11, 2021 (written judgment rendered on February 7, 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, deceased Mother and B ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on April 15, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered, entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre and ordered that the youth be gradually integrated in a foster family, namely Mr.

C, as soon as the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his father and asks that he be entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The father is present and represented by Me Michaël Pereira. He does not take position on the allegations, but he agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] X, who is 16 years old, is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He admits all of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations.

History of the Situation [ 5 ] On March 19, 2015 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X and his sister to a foster family. [ 6 ] On May 7, 2015 , the Court heard the application for protection. X was 10 years old. The mother passed away in January 2011. After the death of the mother, the grandmother took care of him until September 2014, when she also passed away. After X and his sister were moved from one family member to another one, but no one was reliable enough. Finally, they went to live with an aunt, Ms. D, in Town A.

The aunt was hesitant about a long-term involvement with the children, but she accepted. The father hopes to have a new house soon and to be able to have the children back with him. The children developed some attachment problems. The Court declares that the security and development of the child are endangered and entrusted him to a foster family until the end of January 2016. [ 7 ] On December 9, 2015 , the Court revised the decision. After being with a foster family in Town A who decided not to continue, the children were entrusted with Ms. E, an aunt who also gave up.

They were entrusted to a cousin for 2 nights, but it became necessary to separate Y and X. Y was entrusted to a foster family in Town B, and X went back with E. The father could not visit his son because he is at risk to be assaulted if he goes in Town B. The father reduced his alcohol consumption, but always accepted consumers in his place. After a few behavioural issues, X is doing better. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until August 17, 2016. [ 8 ] On August 17, 2016 , an emergency hearing was held and the Court maintained the previous measures.

[ 9 ] On September 15, 2016 , the Court revised the decision. The evidence showed that X was in a new foster family in Town B since June 2016. The father continued to improve his parental skills, but still needed help to impose some limits to people who abuse of his insouciance. X needed a lot of structure. His behaviour could be unpredictable, and he had to work on his self-esteem. The Court entrusted X to a foster family until January 27, 2017, with a reintegration with the father as soon as the situation allows it.

The Court also ordered that the services of an external educator be provided, the whole until March 1, 2017. [ 10 ] On January 9, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a foster family. [ 11 ] On February 27 and 28, 2017 , the Court was supposed to hear the application for revision, but the Court could not travel up North and X was nowhere to be found. The Court maintained the previous measures. [ 12 ] On May 11, 2017 , the Court finally heard the application for revision. X was 12 years old. His behaviour deteriorated since the last order.

He consumed alcohol and drugs, was sniffing gas, was not going to school, and often slept at his father’s place without previous authorization. He was not living at his foster family place since February 2017. He ran away for 2 months before being found and entrusted to his uncle and aunt, who finally renounced to keep him. They also had alcohol consumption issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until November 20, 2017. [ 13 ] On October 2, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 14 ] On November 2, 2017 , the application for revision was heard. The evidence showed that the children were living at the uncle and aunt’s place (F and G), but in July 2017, the couple was so intoxicated that the children had to be removed. On July 24, 2017, when the DYP announced to X that he would entrust a foster family in Town A, the adolescent ran away for a few weeks.

A warrant was issued and he was found on September 27, 2017, and entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. The father helps his son to hide from the DYP services. The father was always the victim of his insouciance and was abused by other people. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2018, with a minimal regime of access rights for the father. [ 15 ] On November 21, 2018 , the undersigned was seized with an application for revision. X was still at the Group Home in Town C. He was very confused regarding the place he would like to live.

He liked being in Town C, but no foster families were available there, and in those circumstances, he would prefer to stay at the Group Home. To allow the DYP to find the appropriate foster family, the Court maintained X to the Group Home with integration in a foster family as soon as possible. [ 16 ] On April 15, 2019 , the undersigned revised the situation. The evidence showed that X remained at Town C Group Home and he did very well. He also performed well at school. The home visits went well. X expresses the desire to be in a foster family in Town C, but it was very difficult to find one.

X was assessed by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist. Dr. Beltempo mentions among others: […] Test data seems to indicate difficulties more with attentional problems and with unresolved grief reactions to the death of his Grandmother who raised him. […] […] X has strong feelings of abandonment and grief stemming from the loss of his Grandmother, often feeling alone. It would be helpful to give him an opportunity or a place to develop a psychological alliance with perhaps a psychologist or counsellor to better cope with loneliness and low self-esteem.

I am not convinced that the data shows any kind of attachment disorder, however, one must be concerned with an attentional deficit. X appears to be somewhat active, perhaps overactive and has self-described as having attentional problems. This assessment was limited by time and availability of psychometric tools. We highly recommend that X be followed-up by a psychologist in Social Services or a social counsellor in order to increase his self- esteem address the grief reactions to his Grandmother’s death. Secondly, he needs to learn healthy strategies to cope with conflict and social skills.

We are not yet convinced that he might have ADHD however, we should monitor this over time and perhaps if needed he would be assessed by a neuropsychologist . He has a very creative and imaginative mind. X is a good candidate for psychological intervention and has some degree of insight although he is more action oriented. Using a skills-building approach with X would go a long way in helping him to seek his place in the future. [ 17 ] The Court noted that the situation continue to evolve positively. X was doing much better, and a lot of questions regarding his needs had been answered.

The Court maintained X to a rehabilitation centre with progressive integration in a foster family. The Court also ordered the implementation of Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations, including the psychological follow-up already requested. [ 18 ] On April 15, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. X remained in Town C and went to school on a daily basis in French immersion. Due to his past English schooling and his learning difficulties, the French schooling caused him some frustration and a lack of motivation. Doing so, he integrated the IPL class where he was doing much better.

Nothing wrong was reported regarding his behaviour. He stopped smoking cannabis and he does not drink alcohol anymore. X continued to express the desire to stay in Town C instead of going to a foster family in another village. His father was still unable to have him back at home. Discussions took place for Mr. C, an educator from the Group Home, to foster the adolescent. X was very happy with this idea. [ 19 ] X was put on a waiting list to receive a psychological follow-up, but the DYP was informed on September 9, that it could take one year.

Nothing was done to speed up the process as the DYP worker just recently realized that it was Court ordered. The Court declared that the rights of X were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection under

section 2.3, 8 and 92, entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre, ordered that he be gradually integrated in a foster family, namely Mr. C as soon as the situation allows it, and that he receive the service of an external educator. As corrective measures, the Court ordered that Dr. Beltempo’s recommendation be implemented without any delay, the whole for a period of 1 year. Facts [ 20 ] After the last decision, the youth was maintained at the Group Home in Town C until the end of September 2020.

He was transferred to the Town B Group Home in October 2020, following an allegation of sexual assault on another youth living at the Group Home in Town C. X always asserted that those allegations were false.

[ 21 ] X would have preferred to be in Town C because he was there since a few years now, but he accepted the plan. He receives the help of an external educator to facilitate the adaptation in Town B. The beginning was difficult, but he adjusted his behaviour and finally everything went well. [ 22 ] In September 2021, the integration at his aunt’s place, Ms. H started. His sister is also living there. He has a very good relation with her and with all the other members of the family. [ 23 ] He is attending school regularly in the IPL program, and he is also working full time at the COOP store.

He is hardworking and his boss is very satisfied of him. He helps his family with this money. [ 24 ] He benefitted from a follow-up with a psychoeducator from Town C when he was there. Once being in Town B, this service was not available anymore, but a request was made for him to continue with the same professional until she left her position in June 2021. X confirmed that he would like to have another follow-up and the request was made. [ 25 ] The integration under Mr. C was never started due to the allegation of sexual misconduct from his part. Doing so, that was not an option anymore.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS this application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on March 18, 2005, are still endangered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family , chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that he is currently entrusted to Ms.

H; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth be supported by Youth Protection services to enter a boarding plan, as a program geared to developing skills and autonomy in order to prepare him for his majority; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the youth, his father and his foster family, receive the services of an external educator; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through the Social Services concerning his alcohol, drugs, personal and anger issues; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution of a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 11, 2021