2018 QCCQ 13913, 2018 QCCQ 13913

Protection de la jeunesse — 195592 2018 QCCQ 13913 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001867-149 DATE: November 21, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 12, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 November 24, 2017, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2009.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre, with a reintegration with his mother as soon as the situation allows it, the whole until November 30, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his mother and that the placement in a rehabilitation centre has to be prolonged with a possible reintegration, the whole until November 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] X who is now 9 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune. He admits most of the allegations and he agrees with the measures. Historical 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. Few days after, his sister was beaten by his brother. His brother was arrested and released under condition.

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 three 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 declares the security and development of the child in danger, and entrust him to a foster family with a reintegration after six months, if the situation allows it, the whole until the end of February 2016. [ 7 ] On February 16, 2016 , on 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 now 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 a revision application. 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. Facts [ 12 ] X is now 9 years old. Since the last order, X stayed at the Group Home in City A. Recent improvements in his behaviour are noted in the centre, but it’s remained fragile.

He continues to demonstrate that he is able to function in a well-structured environment. [ 13 ] Academically, he is doing better and he loves school, but his behaviour at school is still problematic. [ 14 ] X is involved in the hockey team of City A. [ 15 ] Regarding his health follow-up, he is taking three medications: one for his blood pressure after an evaluation from a doctor in Montreal, one for ADHD and one for depression. He saw the child psychiatrist before the previous court hearing, but not since that date. The DYP does not know if he sees a pediatrician.

Also X started a psychological follow-up in January 2018. [ 16 ] The neuropsychological evaluation is not done yet, and the reason given by the DYP worker is because X had too many behavioural issues, and was not stable enough to go to Montreal to undergo to this evaluation. According to the DYP worker, the Group Home is able to manage the situation with a close follow-up and the medication. [ 17 ] Regarding the mother, the situation is improving.

The DYP worker is not aware of the details of the situation (frequency and quantity of consumption), but she noted that the mother is able to reduce her consumption when X comes for home visits, and everything went well during those visits. [ 18 ] In a way to be able to start the reintegration, the DYP would like X to continue to improve his behaviour mostly regarding his anger management. To help him, he has a follow-up twice a week at school and also twice a week at the Group Home.

On the mother’s side, the DYP wants her to continue to reduce her consumption, to be able to impose and maintain rules and structure at home for X. Analysis [ 19 ] In his young life, X suffered from many traumas which for sure have an impact on his behaviour and his health issues. The situation is getting better, and we are allowed to think that a reintegration is possible. X has to continue to work on his anger management. [ 20 ] To allow the reintegration, the mother will have to work on her issues and doing so, she is encouraged to benefit from all the resources available in her community.

Her life was also very difficult and she needs to be supported in this work. [ 21 ] Since April 2017, X should be assessed by a neuropsychologist as recommended by Dr. Beltempo. It was ordered by the Court in May 2017, and reiterates in November 2017. Since that date, apparently, X was not able to go to Montreal to receive this evaluation. This evaluation could have an important impact on his life, but the DYP decide that he was not stable enough to go to Montreal. The Court is surprised by this answer, because he went to Montreal in October 2018, for his blood pressure.

Why the evaluation was not performed at the same time? Was he stable enough to go for his blood pressure, but not enough for his neuropsychological evaluation? This excuse was not mentioned to the Court at the last hearing. The Tribunal mentioned that “since October (2017), things progressively got better. He attends school on a regular basis and evolves in a positive way.” Nothing let us know that it was impossible to make X travelling to Montreal. [ 22 ] As mentioned at the hearing, the Court will order a third time this evaluation, but it has to be the last one.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2009, are still in danger, now according to sections 38 (b) (2) and (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre in the [region A];

[ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the child’s reintegration with his mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health and services required by his situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a neuropsychological evaluation be performed in a delay of two months; [ 29 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to file in the Court’s record, a copy of the psychological evaluation made in April 2017, and a copy of the neuropsychological evaluation upon receipt; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the health professional involved in his life to have access to X’s entire medical file: [ 31 ] ORDERS that X benefit of a psychological follow-up for as long as deem necessary by the professional; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 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 mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or any other organisms in the community, concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to perform unannounced visits to the mother’s home if reintegration occurs; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the services of an external educator be provided when the reintegration occurs; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the mother; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 42 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 21, 2018