2021 QCCQ 16581, 2021 QCCQ 16581

Protection de la jeunesse — 214649 2021 QCCQ 16581 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-000694-049 DATE: February 25, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 21, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [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 , residing and domiciled at [...] 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 extend a decision rendered on November 20, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted X under her parents’ care to the strict exclusion of Y, until October 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation of the youth is going better and asks that X remain with her parents until October 31, 2021.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present while the father is absent. Both are represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. They recognize that the security and development of their child are still endangered and is also under

section 38 (d) (1). They agree with the measures. [ 4 ] X, who is now 17 years old, is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered, and she agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On March 18, 2004 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. At that time, the family situation had been known for a few months by the DYP. At birth, the DYP proposed voluntary measures, which were accepted by the parents. As a result, X was entrusted to a foster family.

The older children were already the object of a decision from the Court because of neglect from the parents’ part. It was uncertain if the situation of neglect was due to a lack of parental capabilities, the intellectual disability of the parents, or any other difficulty. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of 17 months with a possible reintegration during the last 3 months.

The Court also recommended that the parents have access to their daughter every day, encouraged the parents to participate in a psychological evaluation, and ordered that the parents participate to sessions regarding parenting skills once a week. [ 6 ] On February 28, 2006 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained in a foster family. [ 7 ] On May 2, 2006 , the Court reviewed the situation. The child is placed back under her parents’ care, and the situation of neglect repeated itself (malnutrition, health care negligence, lack of hygiene, developmental delays).

Considering the awareness of the parents about their child’s situation, the Court entrusted them the child. [ 8 ] On January 5, 2007 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a foster family. On February 9, 2007 , another provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained, and extended again on March 30, 2007 . [ 9 ] On April 24, 2007 , a provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained once again. The parents were

authorized to produce expertise for the hearing under

section 95 of the YPA. [ 10 ] In July 2007 , Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem produced expertise [2] on the behalf of the parents and described the mother as follows: En aucun moment de notre rencontre et de nos entrevues avons-nous senti chez Madame une manifestation ou un élan d’amour ou d’attachement envers les enfants Z et X. Quand nous allons activement à la pêche pour trouver de telles manifestations, Madame ne dit pas un mot sur ses enfants mais nous dit ni plus ni moins qu’elle ne laissera pas gagner les intervenants de la Youth Protection et que c’est une lutte à finir.

Nous tentons à d’autres reprises de susciter chez elle des propos qui montreraient amour ou attachement. Par exemple, en l’invitant à nous parler de Z, Madame donne une liste de défauts et de comportement répréhensibles. Pas un mot de tendresse, de reconnaissance, de sollicitude. Il est clair pour nous que Madame n’a pas investi ces deux enfants mais par leur entremise, veut donner une leçon aux intervenants. [ 11 ] On September 12, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. X was 3 years old. In November 2005, X and her siblings were placed back under their parents’ care.

The evidence revealed that X and her sister Z were still the victims of physical abuse and neglected in terms of health care and basic needs (black eyes, scratches, bruises all over their body, loss of weight, etc.). According to the medical team of the Montreal Children’s Hospital, the injuries on the children’s bodies cannot be the result of an accident. A few days before the hearing, the father was arrested for assault on the mother. He had suicidal verbalizations. The parents said that they had separated since that event. The Court notes that X has been placed in many foster homes, more than 7.

She had been in a new one since April 2007, and it seemed to go well, but it was the same one as her sister Z, who was spanked by them, and where there was conjugal violence. The Court concluded that the parents did not make any changes, refused the services provided, and did not recognize their issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until she reaches her majority and ordered, among others, what follows: [72] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that it be assessed whether a change of foster homes would be appropriate; […] [76] ORDERS that the clerk of the Court serves this decision to the Commission de la protection des droits de la jeunesse et de la personne, and STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the Commission regularly check on the follow-up to be made by the Director of Youth Protection in this file; [ 12 ] On October 3, 2016 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 13 ] On November 29, 2016 , the Court reviewed the situation.

X was 12 and a half years old. The evidence revealed that she displayed behavioural issues such as not respecting authority, not coming back home at night, consuming alcohol, and not attending school. On September 19, 2016, the foster family gave up and she was entrusted to another one. Two days later, the new foster family also gave up and X was entrusted to a Group Home. The Court noted that X was the victim of serious neglect, rejection, and physical abuse during her childhood, and that she went through multiple placements. An attachment disorder and developmental delays are suspected.

The parents asked that their child come back home, but they did nothing to improve their situation and there was no bond between them and X. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. The Court ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed with specific consideration for the bond between the parents and the child, the whole until August 31, 2017. [ 14 ] On September 7, 2017 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained at the rehabilitation centre. [ 15 ] On October 11, 2017 , the evidence revealed that X had been staying at the [Group Home A] since the last order.

She generally improved her behaviour despite a few running away incidents. She still needed rehabilitation services. The parents were not involved with the DYP services and never asked for visits or for news. The Court noted that the short period of placement requested by the DYP created hope in the child’s mind, which was not in her best interest, given that she was acting out as a result. The Court reminded that Justice Bonin, in 2008, asked the CDPDJ [3] to be involved in the follow-up.

The Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre with a foster family reintegration as soon as the situation allows it. [ 16 ] On October 2, 2018 , the Court reviewed the decision. The parents’ situation remained the same. The youth greatly improved her situation, enough to be able to be entrusted to a foster family on June 8, 2018. She is fostered by her sister C and her spouse D. The adolescent is doing well and the foster family is available on a long-term basis if needed. The parents had not contacted her at all during the previous year.

As the foster family is in City A, X could see her parents and siblings frequently. The Court entrusted the youth to a foster family and recommended that it be the one of C and her spouse D, until October 31, 2019. [ 17 ] On October 23, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained. [ 18 ] On November 20, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. One month after the last decision, X told the DYP that she was hesitant to stay at her sister’s place because she had conflicts with her foster parents.

After meeting with the foster parents and X, the situation was stabilized until April 2019, when X asked to be moved. She was entrusted to another sister, but in July, she disclosed a sexual assault from her sister spouse’s son, who lives in the same house. She was entrusted to her parents. Reports for sexual assault from her brother was received. In August, one of her sisters committed suicide. She was moved to a foster family in City B. The DYP worker assigned to the file was ignoring most of X’s situation. Since the last order, the parents have shown more concern regarding their daughter’s well-being.

The Court declared that the rights of X were wronged by the DYP. The Court entrusted the youth to her parents and orders the following measures: - ORDERS that an intervention plan be reached between the Director of Youth Protection, the parents, and X regarding the situation of endangerment, her safety, and her different follow-ups with professionals; - ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by her situation; - ORDERS that the recommendations set out by Dr. Beltempo in 2016, be followed without any delay, including any evaluation he

has recommended; - ORDERS that X immediately receive services from Social Services or the School counsellor following a frequency of once every two weeks regarding, among other things, the sexual abuses; - ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that X receive this service regularly; - ORDERS the Youth Protection worker, and any other worker assigned to this file, to read all the Court decisions rendered, the first evaluation from Dr. Beltempo, and the counter-expertise from Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem made in July 2007, the evaluation from Dr.

Beltempo in 2016, and the reports made to explain the changes of foster families since her birth; - Considering no external educator is currently available in City A, ORDERS the Youth Protection worker to offer a follow-up every two weeks with the parents and the youth to ensure, among other things, that X is safe and that the situation of neglect does not resurface; - If any evaluation is required in the psychological evaluation from 2016, AUTHORIZES the medical professionals to have access to the entire medical and schooling files of X and ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to facilitate this access; - ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to financially provide for the different medical evaluations; - ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; - ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from all violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; - RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their personal issues; - ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the parents; - RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigation in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; - ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; - ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; - THE WHOLE until October 31, 2020.

Facts [ 19 ] The report mentions that X is followed by the DYP since 2012, and that the physical file was not accessible for the previous years. The DYP worker present at the Court explains that the physical files are kept in City C as the worker in City A have no right to keep the file there. He confirms to the Court that, Ms. [Social Worker 2], the previous worker, read all the files as ordered by the Court because she asked access to the file. Since that time, the file was sent back in City C and he has no access except if he makes a request.

Doing so, he was not able to read all the file. [ 20 ] As ordered, X was entrusted to her parents after the last decision and a meeting took place to set the rules at home. The intervention plan was made with the family and everyone collaborated well. The adaptation was difficult for everyone considering the background of the last 15 years. On February 28, 2020, X told the DYP worker that she felt unsafe at home and that her brother Y come often.

In June 2020, X spoke about other issues with her parents. [ 21 ] Despite the facts that the meeting with X was ordered to a frequency of once every two week, she had been met only once a month.

Mr. [Social Worker 1] is not the worker in this file, so he ignores why she was not met more frequently. [ 22 ] X participated to 3 meetings of Art therapy via a Zoom conferencing system between May and June 2020, and she stopped because she did not like that. [ 23 ] No follow-up from the school counsellor was provided until the end of the school year. [ 24 ] X started working as a janitor for the school during the school year 2019-2020. [ 25 ] The father had a hard time to exclude his son Y from the house. He suggested staying awake during all night to protect his daughter.

Finally, Y went to live with his girlfriend, which helped the situation a lot. [ 26 ] The situation at home started to get better during the summer. The family spent a lot of time camping on the land and it was beneficial. The bonds get stronger between X and her parents. She is happier and laughs a lot now. She is more energetic and she is open to discuss. [ 27 ] The parents demonstrate a lot of love and a lot of concerns for their daughter’s well-being. The situation remains fragile, but it positively constantly evolves.

The parents are not regularly available to meet the DYP worker, so the follow-up with them was not regular. [ 28 ] At home, X continued to respect the rules except for her curfew and her permission for sleepovers. She frequently slept at her sister’s place as she enjoys taking care of her baby.

[ 29 ] Her brother came back living at home after his conjugal relationship ended. On November 13, 2020, X disclosed that her brother sexually abused her again during the summer. She said that she had informed her parents the day after and that they took measures to protect her. Despite that, when the DYP worker was able to meet the parents on November 18, they told not being aware of that and they were in shock. Since that time, her brother was arrested and released with conditions not to be in her presence, not to communicate with her and not to live at his parents’ place.

Doing so, he sleeps every night at X’s sister. [ 30 ] After evaluation, the DYP concluded that X’s situation is endangered under

section 38 (d) (1) [4] . [ 31 ] During a certain period of time, X was very ambivalent regarding her place of living. She spoke about going to live in City B at Ms. E’s place, but she said that she prefers to stay at home to help her parents and that she loves City A and not wanting to live somewhere else. [ 32 ] On November 7, X had made a suicidal pact with her friend, but X had changed her mind and convinced her friend to also change her mind. Unfortunately, when X arrived at her friend’s place, she found her with a rope around her neck.

She was able to hold her legs to allow her to breathe until the police arrived. X was immediately referred to the Social Services. She already had a regular follow-up with them, she appreciated it and would like to continue her follow-up. She says being more at ease to speak with the Social Services worker than with the DYP worker. [ 33 ] Since September 2020, X is going to school and she is also working at school, still as a janitor.

She loves going to school and plans to attend school as long as possible. [ 34 ] The DYP submits that the situation remain endangered and that its presence is necessary to ensure X’s safety. The DYP suggests maintaining the placement at the parents’ place considering it is X’s choice, but the situation is still fragile considering the non- regular follow-up with the parents and the presence of Y in the close environment. Analysis [ 35 ] As shown in the numerous previous decisions, X had a very difficult childhood.

She suffered from a lot of neglect, and she had been placed in foster families almost since her birth. [ 36 ] For one year, she is back under her parents' care. After so many years outside of her family, the beginning of the measure was difficult. Considering that this reunification was the desire of everyone, the difficulties diminished and the situation still improves positively. [ 37 ] Unfortunately, she had been sexually abused by her brother during the summer which is another traumatic event for her.

During the fall, she witnesses another traumatic event when her friend tries to commit suicide and she was the one who intervene to save her. [ 38 ] To pass through such numerous traumatic events, X will need intensive and professional help. As for now, in City A, she only has access to the Social Services. For sure, she appreciates their help and that is positive, but it is obviously not enough.

The Court understands that it could be difficult for her to open up about all those traumas, but she needs to know that services exist, she has the right to have access to such services and she deserves to receive it. [ 39 ] She is going to school, she is doing very well. She would like to continue her studies all long as she can. The Court encouraged her to continue like that and congratulated her for her courage. She has a lot of potential. She has to receive all the appropriate services to make sure that the traumas she suffered from, do not prevent her from realizing her dreams.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the application; [ 41 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are also endangered because of the sexual abuses she had been the victim of (38 (d) (1)); [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth remain with her parents; [ 44 ] ORDERS that X never be left alone with her brother Y; [ 45 ] ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by her situation; [ 46 ] ORDERS that she continue her follow-up with the Social Services; [ 47 ] ENCOURAGES X to attend school regularly; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 51 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and her family; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are

carried out; [ 53 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Roxane Bacon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: February 25, 2021