2019 QCCQ 15204, 2019 QCCQ 15204

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910356 2019 QCCQ 15204 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000790-177 DATE: January 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on September 20, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2012 [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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 January 30, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2012. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and the placement has to be prolonged.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Lazarov. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] X who is 6 years old is absent, but represented by Me Martineau. After hearing the evidence, the child’s lawyer agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 5 ] On June 19, 2017 , a provisional measure was rendered and X was entrusted to a foster family. [ 6 ] On October 20, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 5 years old.

The evidence revealed that from November 23, 2016, to August 22, 2017, voluntary measures were signed and X was entrusted to a foster family. The mother had alcohol consumption issues, she displayed aggressiveness towards her family members, used inappropriate disciplinary measures on the child and did not provide adequate supervision. She worked on her issues at the beginning of the measures, which allowed the reintegration of the child. Unfortunately, new reports were received and in May 2017, the child was entrusted again in a foster family.

One month later, because of X’s behaviour, the foster family gave up and he was entrusted to his grandmother’s care, but the mother did not respect the condition not to reside there. The child was removed and placed in another foster family on June 11, 2017. The child psychiatrist prescribed a medication for hyperactivity and asked to suspend the access with the mother for one month. The mother did not understand her child’s needs and strongly reacted to the placement. The Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family.

The Court also authorized respite at the Group Home, ordered a psychiatric evaluation before the next date of Court, a follow-up if required and recommended a psychological evaluation for the mother, the whole until February 2, 2018. [ 7 ] On January 30, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. X stayed in the same foster family since the last order. The foster mother was an educator at the Group Home. The behaviour improved at home and at school, but he still needs his medication and respite during the weekend. X is diagnosed with ADHD and high anxiety.

The situation of the mother remained the same as she was seen many times intoxicated, including at the Group Home during visits. After being homeless for a while, she had her own apartment. She missed many visits with her son, and still did not recognize the impact of her situation on him. The Court maintains X in a foster family and authorized respite at the Group Home. The Court also asked to consider the grandmother as a foster family, ordered a psychological evaluation and a psychiatric follow-up, and also ordered the services of an external educator, the whole for a period of one year.

Analysis [ 8 ] X stayed with the same foster family (Ms.

B) since the last order. His behaviour was unstable since then and he regressed sometimes. Many events of behavioural issues occurred, and it mostly occurred when the foster mother is absent for her vacation, as she is an educator at the Group Home. [ 9 ] During the absence of the foster mother, he is fostered by another educator (Ms.

C) from the Group Home. [ 10 ] X has the chance to travel to Town A with Ms. B and with Ms. C to Town B. [ 11 ] X also reacted strongly to his mother's presence when she arrived intoxicated for a visit. The visits have to be cancelled, but it took a few days to stabilize X after. [ 12 ] Ms. B already announced that she won’t be able to engage herself on a long-term basis with X. The grandmother was evaluated and it could be an option considering she stopped drinking, but the interaction between her and X is very poor.

Most of the visits took place at the grandmother’s place and it was supervised by a DYP worker who was able to see that the grandmother was not able to offer a proper supervision. [ 13 ] X is still taking medication for his ADHD and his anxiety. This medication helps him a lot and he needs to take it as soon as he wakes up to be able to listen and follow the rules of the foster mother. [ 14 ] The situation of the mother remained the same since the last order.

She did not seek help for her addiction problem and the police had to intervene many times while she was intoxicated. [ 15 ] Her collaboration with the DYP worker is good when she is sober, but as soon as she is intoxicated, it’s impossible to interact with her. [ 16 ] She still not recognized that her personal situation has an impact on her son.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2012, are still endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 20 ] ORDERS that X have respite on the weekends for a maximum of 72 hours at a time at the ’Group Home 6–12,’ located in Town C; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES that the child take part to the rehabilitation program of the ‘Group Home 6–12’ for two hours a day, three times a week; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services required by his situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother follow the medical recommendations of Dr.

Larose, including providing medications to the child if needed; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child, the mother and the foster family receive the services of an external educator for as long as judged necessary; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the mother’s presence at appointments with professionals and her level of involvement in the services provided; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 34 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until the end of August 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 16, 2019