2021 QCCQ 12393, 2021 QCCQ 12393

Protection de la jeunesse — 216520 2021 QCCQ 12393 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-009855-208 DATE: July 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2007 Child -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 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 child is 14 years old.

She is currently entrusted to a rehabilitation centre according to the last Court order rendered on July 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with an application for revision and extension of its last decision. [ 3 ] She alleges essentially that the child has made positive changes to her behaviour but that she cannot be entrusted to her parents because they are not able to ensure a safe and structured environment. [ 4 ] She recommends essentially that she be entrusted to her older sister C and her partner Mr.

D with a social follow-up for one year. [ 5 ] The parents are not in agreement with the recommendations. They want to have their daughter back home. [ 6 ] The child first wish would be to go back home. However, she also agrees to be entrusted to her sister. [ 7 ] The proof reveals that following the last court order, the child continued to reside in a group home, namely at Unit A in Town A. [ 8 ] X has made several gains and improvements since being out of her family home. She is collaborating to her social follow-up and gets specific help concerning her addiction issues.

She also has the support of a traditional support counsellor since April 2021. [ 9 ] She has goals and wants her education to be successful. [ 10 ] At first, the child had unsupervised visits at home on weekends. Unfortunately, several incidents that happened at home made

the Court revise the order concerning the contacts particularly that they are in accordance with the rehabilitation plan. [ 11 ] During the winter, the Director did spot checks at the parent’s residence while the child was there. The workers were able to speak with the child but the parents were rarely present themselves to them. [ 12 ] The parents are not collaborating with the Director. They do not trust the social workers and deny having difficulties. [ 13 ] At the hearing, they cannot explain why they do not have custody of their daughters.

They say that the child belongs to their home and that she has everything she needs. [ 14 ] Y, the child’s brother now lives at the parent’s home. He hangs around regularly with E. The Director has had reports that Mr. E lives with the family but the parents deny. According to the last court order, the contacts between him and the child are forbidden, and that because he sexually assaulted her. [ 15 ] However, at least two incidents, where the Peacekeepers had to intervene, occurred in the last months involving Mr. E. [ 16 ] On May 25, 2020, the Peacekeepers had to intervene because of an attempted suicide by Mr.

E who was highly intoxicated and violent. The parents were present. [ 17 ] On July 12, 2020, the Peacekeepers had to intervene because a 15 year old was missing and reportedly being hidden at the [A- B]’s residence. The parents denied this situation but the child was finally found a few days later at the residence in the presence of Y and Mr. E.

The parents still deny this situation saying they were not aware. [ 18 ] Since the end of May 2021, the visits have stopped at the home due to the increasingly unsafe environment. [ 19 ] The child has visits at her sister’s home. [ 20 ] The parents can visit their daughter at the group home but they refrain to do so. They visited her a few times at C’s. [ 21 ] Ms. C wants to offer her little sister a family environment stating she no longer belongs to a group home. She explains that her mother and Mr.

B are welcome to visit the child at her home. [ 22 ] The Court shares the Director’s analysis [1] : Although X is very loyal to her family and can be easily influenced by them, X has made several gains and improvements since being out of her family home. X has several supports that have put into place, and she now has many safe adults that she can turn to for support. When X is properly supported, she is able to make sound decisions for herself and maintain her boundaries in regard to her safety and what is best for her.

X is a bright young woman, and she can continue to grow in the right direction given the proper supports and guidance. Given that the parents have repeatedly disregarded the court order, consistently refused to cooperate with the DYP, or maintain their sobriety, X’s safety and development within the [A-B] home are still considered to be in danger and at risk. It should be highlighted that the reason the DYP is asking for certain attributes of parental authority to be removed from the parents and granted to Ms. C and Mr.

D is due to the fact that there already is tension in the family regarding visitations and the family dynamics, and we anticipate that this will only increase once the new recommendations have been given. The DYP anticipates that the parents will try to sabotage the entrustment by hindering or denying necessities and services that X may need, simply out of spite. For this reason, the DYP would like to prevent this type of occurrence before it beings, as it would only serve as a detriment to X’s needs and well-being. We also want to support Ms. C and Mr.

D by making this transition as smoothly as possibly for them, to prevent them from becoming overwhelmed with their family members and to prevent the entrustment from breaking down. [ 23 ] The child is still in need of protection. She mostly need structure, safety and stability.

She is getting the help she deserves and must continue to have positive goals in her life. [ 24 ] After having received the admissions, taken into consideration the reports produced and the testimonies heard, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are still in danger and that the situation gives rise to the measures sought.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 27 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 31, 2020 in the present file; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child continues to attend school on a full-time basis; [ 30 ] FORBIDS all the contacts between the child and E; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the rest of her family be upon agreement between the parties, and if there is no agreement they will be supervised by C or a third party designated by the Director, this person will have to ensure the sobriety of the parents before the contact; [ 32 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will implement spot checks, as needed;

[ 33 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of the Youth Protection will do random drug and alcohol test screening at his discretion; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child continues to meet with her Addictions Response Worker, Traditional Support Counsellor and Youth Protection and that she follows recommendations; [ 35 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES Ms. C and Mr.

D to sign the authorizations required for school; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard of their child’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment more particularly that they meet with the Youth protection worker on a regular basis to update their situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents and the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents undergo a full addictions assessment and that follows recommendations; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. [ 40 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. __________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney the applicant Me Annie Giguère Deraps Attorney for the child Me Élise Coulombe Attorney for the mother Me Patrick Cormier Attorney for the father Hearing date: July 28, 2021 Date of signature: August 30, 2021