2018 QCCQ 19361, 2018 QCCQ 19361

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810804 2018 QCCQ 19361 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000588-142 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on February 22, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ 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, [...] Applicant and A, [...] Mother and THE PUBLIC CURATOR, [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 26, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to B until March 20, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to Ms.

B and that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with a possible reintegration into the foster care, the whole until June 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is absent but represented by Me Léonard. She ignores most of the alleged facts and she would prefer that her son stay with her. [ 4 ] X who is now 14 years old is present and represented Me Neptune. He admits all the alleged facts and he agrees with the measures but wants to make home visits. Historical situation [ 5 ] On February 1, 2012 , the situation of X was reported to the DYP and measures were applied.

At that time, his biological mother had assaulted him while his mother was in Town A for medical reason. The social services were in the process to obtain a tutorship for the mother. X was entrusted to his uncle, C who lived in the same house. As C was taking good care of the child, the child’s file was closed one year later. [ 6 ] On July 8, 2014 , the situation of X, who was already entrusted to his brother C, was submitted to the Court. The mother, A, following an important illness which impaired her cognitive capacities, is under a tutorship. She is living at C’s place with her other children.

The situation of X and his siblings improve a lot since they are placed, but, on December 3, 2013, C informed the DYP that he had conjugal difficulties and was consuming drugs and alcohol. C is conscious that this situation has an impact on his siblings. He told the Court he wants to resolve his issues. X showed behavioural disturbances. He was not going to school, not respecting the authority, stealing, and had aggressiveness and anger management issues. The Court declared the security and development of X in danger [1] and entrusted him to his brother C.

The Court also ordered a psychological or psychiatrist assessment. [ 7 ] On February 17, 2015 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological evaluation. The psychologist explained that X is the biological son of D, who physically abused him. He was adopted by his aunt, A. Dr. Beltempo concludes as follows: X nevertheless does show some characteristics consistent with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, most likely alcohol related. We do not have any data yet as to the confirmation of pre-natal exposure to alcohol however we notice partial facial characteristics. I would recommend Dr.

Kent Saylor at the Montreal Children’s Hospital. X would also need more specific intellectual assessment by a

Psychologist working with Dr. Saylor at the Children’s Hospital. We cannot go ahead with this referral until the DYP delegate obtains confirmation from the Mother that she used alcohol or other drugs during the pregnancy. Secondly, we understand that X has difficulties with limits, boundaries, disruptive behaviors and aggression. This is most likely a reaction to significant neglect and physical abuse by adults, thus engendering a fear-based personality, highly sensitive to rejection and abandonment. X has an anxious attachment along with fears of strong rejection and post-traumatic stress.

As noted X also has difficulty sleeping (insomnia) along with fears of rejection and dysthymia. For these difficulties I strongly suggest that he be referred to a counselor/therapist in Social Services of Town B as soon as possible so that he can be supported in this process. If necessary I would also highly recommend that both Foster parents support him and attend some of these sessions as necessary.

Overall it is my understanding through the Social Worker that X may have learning difficulties and although this was not the subject or the focus of my assessment, it is highly recommended that X be referred to the School Psychologist in the Town B educational system in order to rule out any learning problems related to schooling and follow all recommendations as needed. Lastly I would recommend a medical referral to rule out visual problems, possibly strabismus. In conclusion, X has some very positive qualities that at this stage should be supported.

I am concerned that if he does not receive any social and psychological interventions that he may be attracting negative attention and display more serious difficulties such as Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. [ 8 ] On June 16, 2015 , the DYP asked the Court to review the placement at C’s place in order to verify the real engagement of the brother with X and his siblings. X agreed. C was not living anymore with his partner.

The Court prolonged the placement with the brother and ordered a follow-up with Social Services regarding his past traumas and his potential FASD, the whole until October 2015. [ 9 ] On October 15, 2015 , the Court noted that everything went well at the brother’s place. He collaborated well with the DYP. X still displayed behavioural disturbances, but not at school. X refused to meet with the psycho-educator from school.

The Court entrusted him to his brother for one year. [ 10 ] On November 15, 2016 , as everything continued to go well and C agreed to keep X, the Court entrusted him to his brother until he reaches his majority. The mother, A, was still living with her son C. [ 11 ] On February 1, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. C disengaged himself and X was living with his sister E since August 10, 2017. X still displayed behavioural disturbances, and he is smoking marijuana on a regular basis.

In March 2018, he should go to [Region A] with his aunt (biological mother) and his cousin in a therapy to address his drugs addiction problem. D, his biological mother lived in the same house. The Court entrusted X to his sister E and ordered the services of an external educator until January 1, 2019. [ 12 ] On June 26, 2018 , the Court was seized another time as many problems occurred in the household. The biological mother had been intoxicated many times and was aggressive towards the adoptive mother A, X and E.

In April 2018, the DYP was informed that E had alcohol consumption issues and that she had been abusive towards X. The Court entrusted him to his aunt, Ms. B until March 20, 2019. [ 13 ] On September 12, 2018 , provisional measures were rendered and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. Facts [ 14 ] The DYP alleges that X stayed at his aunt’s place since the last order but he did not respect the rules. He consumed marijuana, stayed outside late and would have stolen money and cigarettes to his aunt. Ms.

B says that he often went to his mother’s place because he loves her and because there is no supervision. [ 15 ] The school reports that he did not go to school regularly, he had learning difficulties and on September 6, 2018, the police was called because X and his friends were disturbing at school. When the police arrived, the youth stole a bike and ran away. X never went back to school since. [ 16 ] Ms. D and A are aware that X has a drug addiction problem. Actually the biological mother, Ms. D is homeless in Town A. [ 17 ] Ms.

B does not want to continue to take care of him. [ 18 ] X was entrusted to the Group Home A on August 30, 2018, but he ran away twice. [ 19 ] The DYP asks that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. After the provisional measures hearing, he was entrusted to the Group Home B, and he is there since. He went in Town B for the court hearing, and only a short visit could occur. [ 20 ] According to the DYP worker X is allowed to make home visits with a minimal frequency to once every six weeks. Considering the visits during the court week was very short, he will ask to have the next one before six weeks.

After that, to increase the frequency, the Group Home has to agree or a reintegration process should be started. Analysis [ 21 ] X lived many traumas in his childhood. He lived with consumers, he was physically abused by his biological mother, and his adoptive mother had a brain tumour and a lot of surgery which impaired her cognitive capacities. He was entrusted to family members who also developed an alcohol and drugs addiction problems and he was physically abused by his sister. [ 22 ] Today, we are facing a situation in which his behavioural disturbances are getting worse.

He is only 14 years old and he is not going to school, he runs away, he hangs up with non-recommendable people, he consumes drugs, he has criminal behaviours and he does not respect any rules. [ 23 ] The sadness of the situation is that he had been evaluated by a psychologist and many recommendations were made. The actual file does not speak about the follow-up made since that time. The Court will ask a new psychological evaluation to have an update of X’s

situation. In the meanwhile, his behaviour requested that he be entrusted in a well-structured environment. [ 24 ] It’s obvious that his adoptive mother, A, can’t take care of him. That being said, they are very close together and it’s important to maintain regular contact between them.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still in danger; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS X to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a progressive reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of X be performed and all recommendations be followed including any other evaluation which the psychologist could suggest; [ 29 ] INVITES the psychologist to make any recommendation he or she considers relevant to help X; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the psychologist to have access to X’s medical and schooling files; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between the professionals involved in X’s life with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X and his mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 33 ] ORDERS that X and the foster family receive the services of an external educator on a minimal frequency of once a week when he will be back at the foster home; [ 34 ] ORDERS that X attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X, his mother and Ms.

A be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision and that those contacts take place according to a minimal frequency of once every six weeks and more frequent if it’s possible; [ 36 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding medical, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 39 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 31, 2018