2021 QCCQ 16583, 2021 QCCQ 16583

Protection de la jeunesse — 214651 2021 QCCQ 16583 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001867-149 DATE: May 25, 2021 (written judgment rendered on August 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 revise a decision rendered on June 4, 2020, regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2009.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre and as soon as possible, that the child be entrusted to the foster family of C and D, the whole until February 28, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his mother and asks that he be entrusted to a foster family, the whole until February 28, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and 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 ] X who is now 12 years old is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On February 16, 2015 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The evidence revealed that in August 2013, the DYP had to intervene because the father would have been violent toward X. The father was arrested and released under conditions.

The father denied the violent event, and said that the mother put the child in a risky situation because of her alcohol consumption. From October 2013 to October 2014, voluntary measures were signed, X remained with his parents and the family received the services of an external educator. [ 6 ] The evidence also revealed that on October 3, 2014, the mother was beaten by someone in the house and was medevaced to Montreal. X witnessed the scene. A few days after, his sister was beaten by his brother. His brother was arrested and released under conditions.

On November 22, 2014, a family arguing occurred and the mother was beaten by her daughter and X’s brother beaten the father who was medevaced and passed away as a result of his injuries 3 weeks after. The children remained with the mother, but the situation did not improve. The mother and her daughter highly consume alcohol, and X was entrusted to his aunt.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered, and entrusted him to a foster family with a reintegration after 6 months, if the situation allows it, the whole until the end of February 2016. [ 7 ] On February 16, 2016 , on an emergency hearing, the Court maintained the status quo . [ 8 ] On May 24, 2016 , as the mother could not travel for medical reason, the hearing was postponed and X was entrusted to his

mother. [ 9 ] On June 15, 2016 , as X was 4 years old, the Court revised the decision. The evidence showed that the situation of the mother remained the same and she did not seek help. X was with his mother from February to May 2016. The bonds between the child and his mother were very strong and even if the house was visited by consumers, as the sister left the house, the Court maintained the child with his mother until May 31, 2017. [ 10 ] On May 25, 2017 , the evidence revealed that the mother situation did not improve, but her collaboration was good.

In July 2016, X was the victim of an accident, had a traumatic brain injury and cut off half of his left ear. The mother was not able to go with him at the hospital, as she was too intoxicated. The same month, his sister committed suicide. In October 2016, X started to have aggressive behaviour, concentration difficulties at school and his level of violence continued to increase. It was also reported that X, who was 8 years old, had inappropriate sexual behaviour. The DYP was investigating on this report. In April 2017, X met with Dr. Beltempo, Psychologist.

The writing report was not done at the date of the hearing, but Dr. Beltempo recommended neuropsychological evaluation to assess whether his recent behaviour is the result of the brain injury he suffered in July 2016. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until the end of November 2017, and ordered the neuropsychological assessment as recommended. [ 11 ] On November 24, 2017 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. X was at the Group Home in City A since the last order. He opened up a little more about his past traumas.

He showed that he is able to respect the rules in a well-structured environment. The mother’s situation remained the same. Just after the last order, Prozac and Concerta were prescribed to X. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre and order a reintegration as soon as possible, the whole until November 30, 2018. The Court reiterates the previous order for a neuropsychological assessment. [ 12 ] On November 21, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. X was 9 years old. Since the last order, X stayed at the Group Home in City A. Recent improvements were noted in the centre, but it remained fragile.

Academically, he was doing better, but his behaviour at school was still problematic. He was involved in the hockey team of City A. Regarding his health follow-up, he is taking 3 medications: one for his blood pressure, one for ADHD and one for depression. He saw the child psychiatrist before the previous court hearing, but not since that date. The DYP ignored if he saw a pediatrician. Also X started a psychological follow-up in January 2018.

The neuropsychological evaluation was not done yet, and according to the DYP worker it was because X’s behavioural issues, and he was not stable enough to go to Montreal to undergo to this evaluation. The mother’s situation improved as she had been able to reduce her alcohol consumption during X’s visits. The Court declared that the situation remained endangered, but under

section 38 (b) (2) and 38 (

f) and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration at the mother’s place if the situation allowed it. The Court also ordered that X received a neuropsychological evaluation in a maximum delay of 2 months, that he receive health care services including a psychological follow-up, the whole until November 30, 2019. [ 13 ] On January 24, 2019 , a neuropsychological evaluation was performed. The professional concluded as follows: The results of the current assessment indicate that X does not seem to present with the typical limitations associated with traumatic brain injury sequalae.

He seems to have recovered quite well. However, his accident could have exacerbated his attentional deficits, which are still present despite the use of 36 mg of Concerta. His vigilance is poor, and it is very difficult for him so sustain a cognitive effort, despite his desire to succeed. The diagnosis of attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD) is thus confirmed. The current assessment also indicates that X’s intellectual functioning is extremely low, the non-verbal index being at the 1 st percentile. His conceptual skills are also extremely weak (0,5 th percentile).

Those results indicate that X’s functioning is equivalent to that of a child who presents with a mild intellectual disability. However, it is important to interpret those results in the context of neglect and violence in which he grew up. It is very likely that hardships he experienced prevented him from developing his cognitive skills normally. Furthermore, the harsh context in which he evolved also had negative consequences on his emotional and social development. Despite the improvements in his behavior, he still presents with difficulties in his interactions with others and his emotional regulation.

The results of the current assessment indicate the X presents with mild conduct disorder with childhood onset. The results are not compatible with an oppositional defiant disorder anymore, which is an improvement regarding his past functioning. As Dr. Beltempo had suggested in a previous report, X does seem to suffer from an insecure attachment style, which could interact with the above-mentioned difficulties and exacerbate his emotional dysregulation and his learning disabilities. The possibility that he also suffers from a delayed post-traumatic disorder remains: it could not be ruled out with this assessment.

The fact that he is currently heavily medicated and that he presents with attachment issues makes this dissociation difficult. The combination of his cognitive and emotional limitations will slow down his social and academic development. Therefore, it will be essential that adaptations be put into place to increase his overall well-being. [ 14 ] On November 26, 2019 , the Court revised the situation and noted that X improved a lot since the last decision to the point that he would be ready to reintegrate a foster family, but none had been found.

The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre with a progressive reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible. The Court also ordered that the neuropsychologist’s recommendations be put in place and ordered that X be met by a psychologist once or twice a week and by a psychiatrist once every 2 months, the whole until June 30, 2020. [ 15 ] On June 4, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was able to improve her situation and to decrease her alcohol consumption, but not to put a structure to her son. X continued to evolve positively and to meet with the health professionals as ordered.

The DYP had started integration in a foster family which was stopped due to Covid-19, but this foster family still had the desire to foster him. The Court maintained him in a rehabilitation centre and ordered integration with C and D as soon as possible. The Court also ordered a psychological evaluation and the implementation of the recommendations, the whole until February 28, 2021. [ 16 ] On February 23, 2021 , the Court maintained the status quo as provisional measures. On April 26, 2021 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the child to a foster family.

Facts [ 17 ] On August 29, 2020, X was entrusted to his foster family as ordered by the Court. The foster father is a teacher at school. X adapted very well to his new environment. He was doing very well at school and in the report card of December, the teacher mentioned that he was the top student of the class. [ 18 ] A little behavioural issues happened at school in November 2020, but the foster parents took steps with the school, and it was quickly resolved. [ 19 ] X was not able to maintain his weekly sessions with the psychologist because the psychologist stopped working for the health centre.

He was put on a waiting list until a new one is hired. [ 20 ] The mother situation remained the same. She works full time at the daycare and collaborates well with the DYP. The new element is the facts that she started living with X’s biological father. He collaborates with the DYP, but he has an alcohol consumption issue. [ 21 ] X came in City B for a home visit during summer 2020. The visit went well, but the mother did not respect the medical recommendations. X was supposed to go to the nursing on a daily basis to have his blood pressure checked and to adjust his medication if needed.

Not doing that could cause a risk of a heart attack. The mother never went to the nursing during the 2 weeks of home visit. [ 22 ] The foster parents had only good words about X. The maximum delay of placement was reached, but the DYP firstly asked for another year as the foster parents were not ready yet to confirm their long-term commitment.

X had very strong bonds with his family members, but he did not want to go back living in City B due to the past traumatic events he went through there. [ 23 ] This situation changed drastically by the middle of April 2021, after the youth had been physically aggressive at school against 2 teachers including his foster-father, Mr. C. The foster parents asked for a two-day-respite and when informed about his emergency placement, X reacted strongly and displayed suicidal ideation.

He was brought at the hospital with the police. [ 24 ] The day after, the [C-D] family informed the DYP that they could no longer foster X due to their age (over 70 years old) and their physical limitations. X refused to stay at the emergency foster family and as no other place was available for him, the DYP entrusted him at the hospital as immediate protective measures. [ 25 ] The mother had no reliable option to suggest fostering X. [ 26 ] A short-term foster family was found in City B and X agreed to go there.

The [C-D] family was present at the airport to say goodbye and to make sure that X would not feel rejected. Since his arrival in City B, X confirms that he feel good and safe. [ 27 ] Arrangements were made for the school transfer, and only positive words were mentioned describing the youth. [ 28 ] On May 7, 2021, a long-term foster family was found, the one of Ms. E. Her son is a friend of X, and the latter knows Ms. E very well. The integration started on May 12. Since his arrival in City B, X receive a weekly follow-up from the external educator.

The DYP plan to maintain such service at least until the beginning of the next school year, to make sure that everything goes well. [ 29 ] Regarding the school, arrangements were made for the school transfer and only positive words were mentioned describing the youth. The DYP worker and the external educator were present during this meeting. The Court questioned the DYP worker about the fact that the comments made by the school regarding the child are totally different than the description made by the neuropsychologist.

She explains that various measures had been implemented in school in City A to facilitate his schooling. Those measures are very easy to implement. We are speaking about making the child arrive 15 minutes before the other student and leaves 15 minutes after them for him not being in the rush and also for him to stay in the classroom during the recreation, as he prefers that, among others.

Those very easy measures provided very good results as he is the best student in his class. [ 30 ] The DYP worker, who was present at the meeting held between the school staff from City A and the school staff in City B confirms that the City B School had been made aware of those measures and is totally open to apply the same measures and more if necessary. [ 31 ] Regarding the psychological evaluation ordered by the court, The DYP worker confirms that it had not been performed and recognized that the DYP had the responsibility to make sure it was done.

But due to a lack of proper follow-up, this evaluation had not been done during the last 11 months. She confirms that steps had been done recently to file the request for the psychological evaluation and the DYP is currently waiting for an appointment to be scheduled. [ 32 ] The mother’s situation remains the same. There is still alcohol consumption and violence at home.

A reintegration under the mother’s care would not be in the best interest of the youth who already suffered from various traumas. [ 33 ] That being said, even if he mentioned a few months ago that he refuse to go back living in City B, he is now happy to be there and to be able to see his mother and extended family members very often due to the fact that the mother and the foster family live across the street. Analysis [ 34 ] The situation of the youth remains endangered.

The mother is obviously unable to care for her son, and she totally recognizes it. [ 35 ] Unfortunately, this young boy, who suffered from a lot of traumas during his childhood, had to go through another foster family change despite the strong bonds he created with his foster parents. [ 36 ] Now, he is living with a lady he knows very well and who is ready to foster him on a long term basis if necessary. This child

absolutely needs stability and the DYP is invited to support properly this foster family to make sure this placement will be a success. [ 37 ] Considering the child’s background, any change of a foster family should be the object of a revision in front of the Court. [ 38 ] Indeed, the stability he could gain at Ms. E’s place will help him to heel from his traumas, but will also help him to continue to do well at school. [ 39 ] On this aspect, the DYP is reminded to make sure that the child could receive all the services he needs at school.

Indeed, despite the very bad picture made by the neuropsychologist, this child has obviously all the capacities to succeed and there is no reason for that to change. He has to be supported to complete his schooling with success as he is doing currently. [ 40 ] The DYP worker testified honestly about the non-requested psychological evaluation. Considering the situation of the child and considering the Court order, it is unacceptable that it was not done, and a specific attention will have to be brought to make sure it will be done shortly.

By this non-respect of the Court order, the rights of the child have been wronged by the DYP. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS the application; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2009, are still endangered; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the rights of the youth were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the youth be entrusted to Ms. E; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the youth receive all medical services that he needs, notably a psychological evaluation urgently; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the psychologist’s recommendations be implemented without any delay; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that the youth receive appropriate services at school to facilitate his integration and his schooling; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 51 ] ORDERS the mother to remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 53 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 55 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 25, 2021