2019 QCCQ 14827, 2019 QCCQ 14827

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910446 2019 QCCQ 14827 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-000290-095 DATE: September 5, 2019 (written judgment rendered on September 20, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at Town A, district A Mother and B, deceased ______________________________________________________________________ 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) seizes the Court with an application under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), following a decision rendered on October 31, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002.

At that date, the Court declared that his security and his development continue to be endangered and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre, with a reintegration with his mother as soon as the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to entrust the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with integration in a foster family, if the situation allows it, until the end of December 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is absent on August 8, 2019, but present on September 5, 2019, and she is represented by Me Tommasel. She wishes to follow the desire of her son. [ 4 ] The adolescent is absent on August 8, 2019.

The DYP informed the Court that he left the day before for Edmonton, to visit his brother who is fostered there and to spend time with this foster family who is the one identified to foster him. The adolescent was represented by Me Mocanu on August 8. She spoke with him over the phone, and he confirms his desire to stay in Province A in this foster family. On September 5, 2019, he was present and represented by Me Léonard. He maintained the same position.

History of the situation [ 5 ] The Court reproduced the history of the situation already drawn in the previous decision rendered by the undersigned. [ 6 ] On August 8, 2009 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. At that time, the parents displayed alcohol consumption problems. X was entrusted to a foster home since June 22, 2009, following an emergency hearing. Justice Jacques R. Roy, declared the situation and development endangered and entrusted him to a foster home until August 11, 2010. [ 7 ] On September 28, 2010 , the DYP asked the Court to revise the decision.

The evidence showed that, two days after the previous hearing, the parents were arrested and detained. The father completed A program, but relapsed two weeks after. The mother also started a therapy, but left before the end. Since the last hearing , the police intervened and arrested the parents on fourteen occasions. No visits were organized because of the intoxication of the parents. They did not collaborate with the Youth Protection services. The Court maintained the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family where he used to spend a lot of time.

The Court also orders that a psychological evaluation of the child be performed. [ 8 ] On November 8, 2010 , the psychological report was issued. Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations are the following: […] Perhaps the foster parents should avoid overprotecting him and should help him to learn to take charge of himself and to overcome feelings of anxiety and helplessness. […] His intelligence potential is in the low-average range and the discrepancies in learning suggest

a combination of ADHD, learning disabilities (with reversals) and several sings of FASD. Repetitive techniques which require constant and structured supervision in class and at home are indicated.

Auditory deficits indicate that visual modes of reminders are necessary. […] He seems to be open to counselling and this is an option that should be considered. […] Specifically he has auditory short term memory problems, which lead to memory problems and there are strategies of repetition and rehearsal which Foster Parents should use with him as well as the school administrators. […] I recommend that X be referred to a Pediatrician with a subspecialty in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and for possible medication therapy sings consistent with attentional deficit disorder .

In addition, within one year , he should receive a psychoeducational assessment within the school, to determine whether there have been any changes in intellectual and academic functioning. […] We would recommend that behavioral approaches should be used in the home and school, for contingency positive reinforcement . Specific visual re-educational techniques will be useful in helping him compensate for his auditory memory deficits which would need to be coordinated between the Foster parents and the school teachers. [ 9 ] On April 5, 2011 , Justice McKenna was seized of the revision.

The situation of the father was the same. At that time he was detained, he did not seek any services and did not feel responsible for X. Before the father’s incarceration, some contacts were cancelled because of the intoxication of the parents, but some took place without supervision. X was always very happy to see them. The mother completed a therapy. Her situation was getting better even if the conjugal relation was still fragile. Since the father was detained, the mother’s collaboration was better. X was entrusted 30 months since the beginning of the intervention, including 10 months with Ms. C.

He was doing very well with her. The Court entrusted X to Ms. C until the age of majority and order a psychological follow-up and a psychoeducational assessment for the development of his intellectual and academic functioning. [ 10 ] On March 13, 2012 , a provisional measure was rendered and X was entrusted to a specialized Group Home which offers a close supervision. [ 11 ] On April 4, 2012 , Justice Roy, was seized of the revision and the evidence revealed that X was entrusted to twenty-seven foster families since the last three years. The last one, Ms.

C was not able to provide a structural environment and was overwhelmed by the situation. Since he is in a Group Home, X was doing better. The Court entrusted him in a Group Home for six months with a reintegration in a foster family. The Court also ordered an evaluation from a psychiatrist and that the recommendations be followed. [ 12 ] On October 2, 2012 , Justice Bédard revised the situation. X was still at the Group Home and was doing well. The situation of the parents did not improve.

The Court maintained the placement at the Group Home for a period of three months followed by a reintegration in a foster family for a total of six months. [ 13 ] On April 4, 2013 , Justice Roy was seized of the revision. X entrusted a foster family as ordered by Justice Bédard and he was doing well. X expressed the wish to stay there. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for 12 months and recommended that he be entrusted in the same one. [ 14 ] On March 20, 2014 , Justice Gagnon revised the situation.

X did well in his foster family until September 2013, when the behavioural disturbances reappeared and the foster family gave up. He was entrusted in another one which was closed few weeks after, for an unknown reason. He recently entrusted Ms. D’s house, and everything seemed to go well. This was the 30 th foster home where he was entrusted to. The father seemed to be more concerned by his son, and ready to make changes in his life. The visits between him and his son went well. The Court entrusted X to the foster family of Ms.

D until August 8, 2014, and explained that it’s in the interest of X to specify the foster family to avoid a change without submitting the situation to the Court. [ 15 ] On December 18, 2014 , the evidence showed that the situation of the father evolved a lot, he was very proud of his involvement and he says being ready to have his son back. X misbehaved at Ms. D’s place. He ran away, he did not listen to the rules and he skipped school.

The Court entrusted X to his father with the services of an external educator and Youth Protection follow-up until December 18, 2015. [ 16 ] On February 18, 2016 , the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre because he displayed behavioural disturbances. He consumed drugs and stayed outside late. He did not respect his father’s authority and did not attend school. The Court also orders a reintegration, the whole until June 15, 2016. [ 17 ] On June 13, 2016 , Justice Gravel prolonged the placement at the rehabilitation centre because, even if X was doing better, he still needed services and structure.

The Court authorizes the reintegration during the summer and services until March 31, 2017. [ 18 ] On January 24, 2017 , the DYP asked for a revision. While X was reintegrated to his father, his behaviour was getting worse. The father still had difficulty to maintain his sobriety. Considering that X was generally doing well in a well-structured environment, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a progressive reintegration to a foster family until January 31, 2018. [ 19 ] On January 30, 2018 , Justice Lecompte was seized of the situation. X was still at the rehabilitation centre.

His father passed away in June 2017. The mother seemed to make some changes in her life, and the visits at her place went well. She was collaborative with the Youth Protection services. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilita-tion centre and recommended the centre located in Town A, with a reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it, the whole until November 30, 2018. [ 20 ] On October 31, 2018 , the undersigned was seized with the revision. The adolescent was 16 years old. The evidence shows that X is able to behave well in a well-structured environment.

Since the last Court order, he stayed at the Group Home in Town B. He is going to school regularly and despite the learning difficulties raised in the past, he is doing well. The situation is getting worse when he comes to [Town A] to visit his family and where he puts himself at risk (criminal activities related to drugs, assault on a DYP worker). Following those difficulties, he was entrusted to a more structured rehabilitation centre in Town C for a few days, and came back at the Town B Group Home in April 2018. Few days later, his sister committed suicide.

On September 18, 2018, because of his behavioural issues, X was entrusted to A rehabilitation centre in Town C. [ 21 ] The mother admitted still having an alcohol consumption issue. She had a lot of difficulty coping with her daughter’s death. She has a regular follow-up with the Social Services and planned to entrust a treatment centre for a second time. She also wished to meet with

a psychologist, but despite her request, no one calls her back. The mother did not see his son since March 2018. [ 22 ] Questioned by the Court regarding the medical follow-up received by X, the DYP worker answers that X never met with a specialist to evaluate a possible FASD nor benefited from a follow-up with a pediatrician or psychiatrist to re-evaluate his ADHD, as it was recommended by Dr. Beltempo in 2010, while X was eight years old. To his knowledge, the medication was not taken because X refused it. The worker also answers that X never benefited from the psychological follow-up recommended by Dr.

Beltempo (2010) and order by Justice McKenna (2011) nor from psychoeducational assessment also recommended by Dr. Beltempo and ordered by Justice McKenna. It is the same thing for the evaluation from a psychiatrist, and the follow-up ordered by Justice Roy in 2012. Those services were never provided. The DYP worker admits that he was not aware of those recommendations and Court orders.

He did not read the file before coming at the court hearing, and he is not the worker in charge of X’s file, so he is not able to give reason for this lack of service. [ 23 ] The Court entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre until April 18, 2019, and after mentioning that the services were not provided to the youth, the Court mentioned it will have to be provided as recommended and ordered before, and took the conclusions under advisement to detail all the services to be offered. [ 24 ] On January 11, 2019 , the undersigned signed the written decision with the following conclusions: [41] GRANTS this application; [42] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [43] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a reintegration with his mother as soon as the situation allows it; [44] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of X be performed and recommendations be followed including any other evaluation which could be recommended within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [45] ORDERS that X benefit from a follow-up with a pediatrician and that ADHD be re-evaluated and all recommendations be followed, including medication within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [46] ORDERS that X be evaluated to determine if he suffers from a FASD and that all recommendations be followed within a delay of two months following the writing decision; [47] ORDERS that a psychoeducational assessment of X be performed and recommendations be followed within a delay of three months following the writing decision; [48] ORDERS that all the evaluations ordered by the Court be filed in the court’s record, upon receipt; [49] ORDERS that all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation receive a complete copy of his medical file including a copy of the psychological assessment made in November 2010, a complete copy of his schooling file and a copy of this present decision; [50] AUTHORIZES all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation to have access to any other documents they consider relevant; [51] AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in X’s situation to exchange information between them and with the Director of Youth Protection regarding the diagnostics, the recommendations and the involvement in the follow-ups; [52] ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by his situation; [53] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to assist the mother to obtain a reference to see a psychologist if she still wishes it; [54] ORDERS that the mother reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are in danger; [55] ORDERS that the adolescent, and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [56] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a regular basis or any other place of learning; [57] ORDERS that the adolescent, and the mother receive the services of an external educator once in the mother’s care; [58] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the adolescent; [59] ORDERS that the mother continue to address her alcohol consumption issue through Social Services or AA meetings; [60] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent, and the mother, are supervised and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [61] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his mother; [62] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [63] 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;

[64] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [65] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [66] THE WHOLE until April 18, 2019. Facts [ 25 ] Since the last order, X was maintained at the rehabilitation center in Town C. • Testimony of Ms. [social worker 1] [ 26 ] Ms. [social worker 1], a new worker, started working for the DYP in January 2019, and was assigned to X’s file.

She met with him for the first time on February 12, 2019, when he came in Town A for the criminal court (YCJA). [ 27 ] On August 8, 2019, during her testimony, she explained that she read the previous decision on March 11, 2019, and realized that many services had to be rendered for a long time and were not.

She immediately sent an e-mail to her direct manager, to Mr. [social worker 2] the Director of Youth protection for A, and to the assistant DYP saying: From: [social worker 1] (CSTU) Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019, 4:30 PM To: [social worker 3] <[social worker 3]@ssss.gouv.qc.ca>; [social worker 2] (CSTU) <[social worker 2]@ssss.gouv.qc.ca>; [social worker 4] @ssss.gouv.qc.ca Subject: Request for psychological evaluation Good afternoon, In the absence of [social worker 3] I am forwarding this email to you [social worker 2] and [social worker 4] as I have an urgent request for a Youth regarding psychological evaluation as a recommendation in a court order in the file of X who is currently placed in A home in [Town C] since about October 2018.

I was just made aware that we were supposed to request such evaluation or psychological follow- up regarding FASD or ADHD a long time ago. This kid has been through a lot, he lost his sister last year to suicide and has been in group home in [Town A] prior to be transferred to [Town C]. He did have behavioral difficulties such as aggressiveness and physical assault towards three females at the group home and a colleague of DYP. He also stole about $10,000 worth from a local drug dealer in [Town B]. The child was supposed to receive a professional follow-up in the last few years but we lacked in doing so.

Thank you, [social worker 1] Human relation officer | Direction of Youth Protection Tel: […] Toll Free: […] Fax: […] [ 28 ] Considering she never receive any answer, she forwarded the same e-mail on April 15, to the same people before leaving for vacation on April 18, 2019. According to her testimony of August 8, Ms. [social worker 1] never received any answer following her second e-mail. [ 29 ] The previous measures ended on April 18, 2019.

Questioned by the Court, Ms. [social worker 1] admitted that she read the file only one month before the end of the measures to be able to start the revision of the file before going back to the court. [ 30 ] During the week of court in April 2019, the docket was full of capacity and the Court was seized with an application under

section 76.1 YPA and the measures previously ordered were prolonged until August 8, 2019. [ 31 ] On August 8, 2019, Ms. [social worker 1] confirms that no one of the evaluations or follow-ups ordered by the Court were done nor requested. [ 32 ] She also explained that in June 2018, the DYP started the integration in a foster family. Doing so, X had a visit with his brother and his mother in [Town C]. After he went to [Province A] for two weeks to see his brother. After those two weeks, the foster family said being interested to foster X as the relationship between the two brothers is very good.

Doing so, X was authorized to go another time in [Province A]. [ 33 ] He left for his third trip to [Province A] on August 7, the day before the court hearing. Ms. [social worker 1] communicated before with the youth’s lawyer to know if it would be a problem if X would not be present at court hearing, and if it would be possible for him to communicate by phone. The lawyer gave his authorization. Ms. [social worker 1] explained that it was important for X to go

there because the foster mother booked an appointment for him with a mental health counsellor in Edmonton. Also, at that date the foster mother’s parents travelled from [Town C] to Edmonton and could escort X.

This would give him the opportunity to meet with the extended family of his future foster family. [ 34 ] Another stay in [Province A] in planned in October before a complete integration by the end of December 2019. [ 35 ] Questioned by the Court about the legal aspect which allowed the integration in a foster family, the DYP worker realized at the hearing, reading out the conclusion of the previous order that the integration was possible only with the mother. [ 36 ] The DYP worker was also questioned about the steps done to help the mother to benefit from a psychologist as she requested.

Ms. [social worker 1] admits that no steps were made in this way. The worker is aware that the mother tried to commit suicide in May 2019, and she is aware that the doctors, before signing the discharge, always invite the person to meet with the Social Services if needed. According to her, the mother, as any other person who made a suicidal attempt, received the same reference. [ 37 ] Considering the revision report was signed on March 15, the Court requested to know more about X’s situation between mid- March and August. X ran away a few times and sometimes for a few days.

On one occasion, he was found breaking into a car, was accused under YCJA for this infraction and was entrusted twice to a more secure unit to prevent this kind of behaviour. X also admitted having consumed drugs during one of his running away. [ 38 ] At the end of Ms. [social worker 1]’s testimony, the Court raised the possibility to declare that the rights of X have been wronged by the DYP.

To know more about the situation and the services provided, the Court suspended the hearing, summoned Mr. [social worker 2], Director of Youth protection for A, to testify and set the continuation of the hearing on September 5, 2019. The Court also order that the lawyers receive the stenographic transcripts among other to allow Mr. [social worker 2] to know what was said. • Testimony of Mr. [social worker 2], Director of Youth Protection – A [ 39 ] Mr. [social worker 2] recalls that Ms. [social worker 1] came in his office on April 15, 2019.

She explained to him the situation and he was very surprised and concerned to hear that nothing was done before. He insisted on the fact that the Court decisions have to be respected and asked Ms. [social worker 1] to add the name of X on the list to be seen by Dr. Beltempo during his next visit in [Town A] scheduled for July 2019. [ 40 ] According to Mr. [social worker 2], the psychological evaluation by Dr. Beltempo is the first step.

The DYP needs to receive the psychologist’s recommendations to ask for more evaluation (ADHD, FASD, psychoeducational evaluation, etc.) if it’s recommended by the psychologist. [ 41 ] Mr. [social worker 2] was asked why Ms. Caroline Boulanger, the psychologist who worked for [Town A]’s DYP from fall 2018 to spring 2019, was not requested to perform the psychological evaluation. He explained that she had too many youths to evaluate (around 65) and it was necessary to request the help of a private practitioner, Dr. Beltempo, who comes up North for many years. Moreover, Ms.

Boulanger gave her notice in June 2019. [ 42 ] The duration of the meeting was around 15 to 20 minutes. They spoke only about this situation. Mr. [social worker 2] asked questions to be sure they speak about the same adolescent, but he did not read the decision at that time nor after. [ 43 ] Mr. [social worker 2] knew that Ms. [social worker 1] was leaving for her vacation few days after and was sure that, as requested, she puts the name of X on the list after the meeting. But when he was informed that his presence was required at the court, he made some verification and learned that she forgot to do it.

X’s name was finally added on the list on August 21, 2019, two weeks after the beginning of the present hearing. [ 44 ] Many questions were asked to understand how the services were not provided. First, Mr. [social worker 2] acknowledges the receipt of the e-mail dated on March 11, 2019. At that time, he was alone at the office and as he receives more than 100 e-mails a day, it’s possible that he did not read it. [ 45 ] He adds that he has no good reason for the non-respect.

He only has explanations to provide: for the last nine months, the DYP has no reviser, no manager at the department of “application des mesures” and the organization is functioning with only 50% of the required staff. He posted many job offers during the last two months, but he receives no application. He insists on the fact that the situation is presently very difficult and very demanding for the workers present, who are always requested on emergencies. He recognizes that the decision was not respected, without good reason. But according to him, in this kind of situation it’s possible that no- respects occur.

Mr. [social worker 2] said: “For my

part I have many reasons but there is no reasons not respecting the Court orders. I’m very sorry about that X and the family. I just want to say when I knew the situation, I talk with [social worker 1] and I say it’s very important to respect the Court orders and the needs of the child. And I’m sorry for that, it’s unacceptable but it’s out of my control because if I have nobody for the job, I have a big problem with that. Now [social worker 3] work hard to get a new social worker. He mentioned that new staff is coming soon.

But no reasons to not respect the Court orders, it’s not acceptable, I’m not happy with that”. [ 46 ] Finally, X will be able to see Dr. Beltempo at the end of September or beginning of October 2019, and the report is generally available two months after. Questioned on the reason why Dr. Beltempo, who lives in [Town C] area, should meet X in [Town A] while he is also in [Town C], Mr. [social worker 2] answers that it would be a possibility to have X seen in [Town C].

He ignored if the request was made, but he admits that the list he spoke about, is the list of children who need to be seen in [Town A]. [ 47 ] Mr. [social worker 2] also explained that it’s always possible to make a requested for the psychologist to see a child urgently or to ask a collaboration with A Center to see if this Youth Center can provide the service more quickly, but in the case of X, nothing was done in this way and in April, he did not speak about this possibility with Ms. [social worker 1]. The request to A Center was finally done on August 21, 2019, and the DYP is still waiting for an answer.

[ 48 ] The Court asked Mr. [social worker 2] why the new psychological evaluation is requested before asking any others. According to Mr. [social worker 2], the opinion of the psychologist is necessary to have a referral for the FASD evaluation. The Court reminds him that the psychological evaluation done in 2010, already spoke about the fact that the mother was suspected of having consumed alcohol during the pregnancy and symptoms of FASD were observed on X. The Court asked Mr. [social worker 2] how this kind of situation could change with the passage of time.

He replied that it’s a good question and admitted that he did not read the previous psychological evaluation and even if he would have done, he can’t recall all the psychological evaluations and the previous decisions rendered in all the files.

Finally, on this aspect, Mr. [social worker 2] said that it’s very difficult to obtain a FASD evaluation in the province of Quebec. [ 49 ] Questioned about the reason why a psychological evaluation is needed to be able to meet with a pediatrician, Mr. [social worker 2] recognized that it’s not necessary and admitted that was not requested either. [ 50 ] Concerning the psychoeducational evaluation, Mr. [social worker 2] is convinced that it could be done by Dr. Beltempo himself. Confronted to the fact that in 2010, Dr.

Beltempo recommended that such evaluation be done by the school, Mr. [social worker 2] has no more to say, as no verification were done on this aspect. [ 51 ] During the meeting hold on April 15, 2019, the new orientation was discussed and Mr. [social worker 2] gave his consent to work on the integration in a foster family. • Testimony of Ms. [social worker 1] [ 52 ] On September 5, 2019, the DYP worker testifies again after Mr. [social worker 2]. She recognized that on August 8, she did not speak about the meeting of April 15.

She recalled it after speaking with Mr. [social worker 2] to prepare the continuation of the hearing. She recalls that she left for her vacation on April 18, and before leaving she forgot to add the name of X on the list, as Mr. [social worker 2] asked her to do. She did it on August 21, 2019. [ 53 ] On September 4, 2019, she met with X and she asked him to sign the consent to be seen by Dr. Beltempo. X refused it. He went to see the counsellor in [Province A]. He did not like it because he does not like to speak about his background, but he accepted to continue.

He expressed being scared about psychological evaluation because he does not want to be identified as having mental health issues. [ 54 ] It was the first time for Ms. [social worker 1], she spoke about this topic with X. She ignores what kind of intervention was done by the previous workers to obtain his consent. She was reminded that on October 31, 2018, X, by the voice of his lawyer requested those evaluations. • Testimony of X [ 55 ] As X was present in [Town A] on September 5, 2019, he testified. He expressed his desire to be fostered by Ms. E in [Province A] and to live with his brother.

He would like to go to school there and to play football. [ 56 ] The last visit went very well, and he maintained contact with Ms. E by phone at least every three days. [ 57 ] According to him, he is doing well at school. Analysis [ 58 ] In the last decision, the undersigned wrote: [37] For many years, X displays behavioural disturbances. He participated in an evaluation, and recommendations were made by the psychologist eight years ago. For unknown reason no follow-up was done and services were not provided to X.

His situation continued to deteriorate and his behavioural disturbances are so important that he need rehabilitation services and moved from one rehabilitation centre to another one. If the services have been provided as requested, we are allowed to suppose that X could evolve today with his family or at least in a foster family. [38] His family situation is a tragedy.

His father passed away in 2017, his sister committed suicide in 2018, his brother is entrusted to a foster family in [Province A] until he reaches his majority and X, after being entrusted in 30 foster families, was entrusted in rehabilitation centres with transfers from [Town B] to [Town C]. [39] The mother is living the same tragedy to which we should add the traumas she suffers from her childhood. Today, the DYP worker describes her as “quite passive” because she did not file the form she received two weeks ago. Is there any mother living the same tragedy who could find the energy to make it?

Is it possible to consider all the circumstances? How can we reproach to the mother not to have completed a form in two weeks while the DYP did not offer services to X in height years? [40] The Court considers that the DYP has a responsibility in the actual situation of X and will asks the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la jeunesse to do an investigation in this file.

X, even if he is 16 years old, agrees to receive the services he did not receive before and recognizes it would be in his best interest. [ 59 ] The last measures were ordered until April 2019, and now the Court is seized with an application under

section 95 YPA. [ 60 ] The evidence revealed that the DYP worker assigned to this file took time to read the decision one month before the revision and realized that many evaluations were requested, the same as the ones requested for many years. [ 61 ] Despite two e-mails sent to the DYP himself and his assistants, no answer was provided to Ms. [social worker 1] until she decides to go to his office in April, before leaving for vacation. Before this meeting and until today, the services are still not provided as the DYP worker forgot to put the name of X on the list to be able to see Dr. Beltempo, during his next visit scheduled for July 2019. The

Court is surprised, to say the least, that this information was not given when she testified on August 7. [ 62 ] For these reasons, X was not seen by Dr. Beltempo in July and the request was finally done on August 21, 2019, quite two weeks after the first day of hearing. [ 63 ] During the meeting hold on April 15, 2019, Mr. [social worker 2] insisted on the importance to respect the Court order, but no follow-up was done by him later and he did not take this opportunity to read the decision, nor before testifying on September 5. [ 64 ] On August 8, date set for the hearing, X was absent. He was in [Province A].

On which ground? Because the DYP changed the orientation and decided to start integration to a foster family, despite the fact that the judgment ordered a reintegration with the mother. [ 65 ] The DYP does not seem to agree with this conclusion. However, it was the recommendation made at the last hearing (October 31, 2018) in the revision report and following the decision, the DYP did not appeal it. Doing so, the decision has to be applied or the Court has to be seized with an application for revision.

Moreover, the Court is seized today, not with a revision application, but with an application for extension. [ 66 ] The DYP lawyer pleads that those stays in [Province A] were done under

section 62.1 YPA which says: 62.1.

When the tribunal orders that the child be entrusted to an alternative living environment, the director may authorize the child to stay, for periods of not more than 15 days, with his father or mother, with a person who is important to the child, in particular his grandparents or other members of the extended family, with a foster family or within a body, provided those stays are in keeping with the intervention plan and respect the interest of the child. […] [ 67 ] For sure, it respected the desire of the child, but it was not possible that those stays were part of the intervention plan considering the Court order did not authorize integration in a foster family.

Moreover, the non-contested evidence shows that those stays were done in a way to start integration with the total approbation of the DYP himself. [ 68 ] The Court is very preoccupied by the willingness of the DYP not only to respect the decision, but to respect the law and to act in the interest of the adolescent. [ 69 ] Considering the terms of the last Court decision, which reminded the lack of services for many years, the energy should have been put to offer the services on an urgent manner. But despite that, no energy was put and only explanations are provided to the Court.

The Court is well aware of the difficulties linked to recruitment and staff retention in the North. [ 70 ] On this aspect, the DYP lawyer asks the Court to consider the end of

section 8 YPA which says: 8. The child and the parents are entitled to receive, with continuity and in a personalized manner, health services and social services that are appropriate from a scientific, human and social standpoint, taking into account the legislative and regulatory provisions governing the organization and operation of the institution providing those services, as well as its human, material and financial resources. The child is also entitled to receive, on the same conditions, appropriate educational services from an educational body.

Furthermore, the child and the parents are entitled to be supported and assisted by a person of their choice if they wish to obtain information or when meeting the director or any person the director authorizes. [ 71 ] The Court reminds that the jurisprudence always maintained that the lack of resources cannot be used to justify a lack of service or a non-respect of a Court order [1] . In 2010, Justice Primeau [2] , seized with a motion for declaration of wronged rights, said: [159] Si les dispositions législatives énonçant les droits des enfants à des services de santé sont en

partie tributaire de l’organisation et du fonctionnement des établissements, qui dispensent ces services ainsi que des ressources humaines, matérielle et financières dont disposent ces établissements, tout comme l’a mentionné notre collègue, l’Honorable juge Gervais 26 , cette balise ne saurait justifier la négation de ce droit. [160] De plus les procédures mises en place doivent le céder le pas devant des droits fondamentaux et l’intérêt supérieur d’un enfant, qui bien sûr, se doivent d’être analysés cas par cas. [161] La Cour fait siens, à ce sujet, les propos énoncés par l’Honorable juge Daniel Bédard 27 dans une décision rendue le 21 septembre 2000 : « Cependant, certains services visés par les mesures ordonnées par le Tribunal et on le comprend aisément, requièrent l’accomplissement de diverses formalités et sont soumises à des modalités d’accès qui diffèrent selon les établissements qui les dispensent.

À

titre d’exemple, les services de santé. » [162] Ceci étant, notre collègue rappelle qu’il nous faut faire une distinction entre une attente raisonnable qui ne met pas en péril le droit de l’enfant à des services de santé à une attente qui aboutit à la violation de ce droit à des services de santé, considérant dans le cas qui nous occupe, l’état dans lequel X se trouvait, les rapports à cet effet le démontrant. [163] D’ailleurs, il nous faut se rendre à l’évidence que tant l’évaluation psychologique de madame Karcheva que l’évaluation pédopsychiatrique du docteur Grenier concluent à un diagnostic pédopsychiatrique et à des troubles qui nécessitent une médication et des soins particuliers. [164] Sans remettre en doute, les prétentions des Dr Arpin et Thomassin-Girard, à l’effet que les enfants non soumis à l’attention des

Directeurs de la protection de la jeunesse, peuvent présenter de grandes souffrances et répondre à des critères permettant de leur donner priorité, il nous faut considérer que la clientèle en protection de la jeunesse présente des besoins forts particuliers. [165] À ce sujet, notre collègue, l’Honorable juge Daniel Bédard 28 , dans le jugement précité, énonçait : « S’il est évident que l’article 8 impose des modalités d’exercice aux droits qu’il confère, il est aussi évident qu’il vise une clientèle dont la situation est particulière au niveau développement et sécurité, une clientèle qui se démarque de la population en général, ne serait-ce qu’au niveau des services requis pour réintégrer cette population.

Alors, si l’État permet à la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse d’intervenir dans la vie privée de ces gens pour enrayer une situation de compromission, et que les motifs de cette intervention sont confirmés par un Tribunal, et qu’il s’ensuit une décision ordonnant des services, on doit nécessairement conclure à une différence dans les modalités d’accès à ces services. » [ 72 ] Many times, the DYP said in his testimony that with all the files he has and with the lack of resources, as being a human, he could forget one file.

As mentioned, the Court is aware of the situation, but the YPA is not different in [Town A] than in [Town C]. There is no exception in the law for the Inuk children who live in a region where the services are less available. Doing so, the DYP has to find the appropriate mechanisms to fulfill his obligations and to make sure that the high number of files will not create such a situation. The justification “it’s the North” is not acceptable anymore. [ 73 ] Moreover, the Court said in 2018, that this file was forgotten for eight years.

It’s really hard to understand, when it’s so important for Mr. [social worker 2] to respect the Court orders, that it is still forgotten nine years later. [ 74 ] The sections 92 and 93 YPA stipulate: 92. Where the tribunal orders the carrying out of a measure with regard to a child, it shall entrust the situation of the child to the director, who shall then see that the measure is carried out. Every institution and every educational body is required to take all available means to provide the services required to carry out the measures ordered.

The same applies to every person and to every other body that agrees to apply such measures. 93.

Every decision or order of the tribunal is enforceable as soon as it is rendered and any person contemplated in it must comply therewith without delay. [ 75 ] The jurisprudence provides many examples in which the DYP was blamed because of a non-respect of a Court decision in delay much shorter than nine years [3] . [ 76 ] Considering the situation, the Court declares that the rights of the youth have been wronged by the DYP on many aspects including sections 2.3 a), 3, 8, 92 and 93 YPA. [ 77 ] According to the last paragraph of

section 91 YPA, the Court will order corrective measures. [ 78 ] The Court understands the situation of X and his desire to start a new life. He has now projects with his brother and it’s very nice to see that he can bounce back. The Court is also conscious that he wants to turn the page. But the Court also considers that integrations in foster families were tried previously and after a honeymoon, the situation get worse and he was entrusted back to a rehabilitation centre. [ 79 ] The Court doesn’t want that happen again. X is not different has other children.

It’s not only his fault if the previous integrations did not work. He has a personal situation and he has specific needs to be addressed to make sure that he will finally live a success. The Court wants to remind him that any other youths placed in the same situation, with the same background, would have the same difficulties. It’s not a question of mental health issues. It’s a question of traumas which affect his development and his well-being. [ 80 ] If those issues are not addressed, the situation won’t change with a wave of a magic wound. He is 17 years old.

It’s more than time for him to receive the appropriate services he deserves and he expects for many years. [ 81 ] It’s very sad to see that today, it’s X again who will consider himself as punished. If those services have been provided earlier, we were not here today, X would have resolved his issues and maybe he would be in a foster family or with his mother since a long time. But the Court insists on the fact that those services are not a punishment. The Court invites X to see that as an opportunity to have a better life. [ 82 ] One word on the FASD evaluation.

Mr. [social worker 2] said it’s very difficult to obtain such evaluation in the province of Quebec. The DYP lawyer pleaded that it’s impossible and even if the Court render another time such order, it won’t be possible to respect it as no professional offer this service in the province of Quebec. The Court has no evidence that this evaluation is not possible. The Court has a judicial acknowledge that Dr. Beltempo continues to recommend it in his evaluations, and also that conferences are offered by professionals regarding this aspect in [Town C] area.

As a high percentage of the Inuk population is suspected of suffering from this spectrum, the service is necessary and the DYP has to take the step to make it available for the Inuk children followed by his organization. [ 83 ] Considering the actual situation of X, the measures will be until December 20, 2019, and considering the prescription of

section 95.1 YPA, the undersigned will be available to hear the revision when needed. [ 84 ] As nothing was done for nine years and to reduce, as much as possible, the impact of those evaluations for X, the Court will impose, as corrective measures, a very short delay to provide the services. The energy was not put before to respect the rights of the adolescent nor to put an end to the situation in which he is endangered. No more delay will be tolerated. [ 85 ] This situation is too serious to remain unsaid. As mentioned by Justice Viviane Primeau [4] and repeated by Justice Mélanie

Roy [5] : [94] La Cour a la responsabilité et le devoir de préserver l'intégrité et le sérieux du système judiciaire. Un tel mépris de la part du père à l'égard d'une ordonnance judiciaire est sanctionné par la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse à son

article 134. [95] C'est dont pourquoi une telle violation mérite d'être signalée aux instances pénales chargées de l'application de la

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse. Pour ce faire, malgré la confidentialité du dossier de la Cour, l'article 96 de la Loi permet que le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales ou une personne autorisée par celui-ci puisse prendre connaissance du dossier ou en recevoir une copie ou un exemplaire. [ 86 ] The Court of Appeal, in a decision rendered in 2018 [6] , listed the elements which have to be established beyond reasonable doubt in a situation of contempt of Court for non-respect of Court order.

In the present situation, the Court has no hesitation to give the DYP a notice that this decision and the court file will be transmitted to the Crown Prosecutor for him to make the decision to raise charge of contempt of Court, the whole according to

section 96 YPA. [ 87 ] This referral is based on the following elements: - The previous decision detailed clearly what was expected from the DYP; - The DYP has a personal knowledge of the decision or can’t ignore it as, since June 2009, the situation of X is entrusted to the DYP under the prescription of

section 92 al. 1 YPA; - The DYP did not respect the paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 53 of the decision; - The DYP was personally aware that the last decision and the previous ones were not respected. [ 88 ] As it was done in 2013 [7] , the Court also refer the file to the Crown Prosecutor for him to make the decision to take penal proceedings under

section 134

a) YPA which stipulates: 134. No person may (

a) refuse to comply with a decision or an order rendered under this Act or advise, encourage or incite a person not to comply with it; FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 89 ] GRANTS this application; [ 90 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002, continue to be endangered; [ 91 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until December 20, 2019; [ 92 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection plans to start integration in the foster family of Ms.

E in [Province A], who already foster the younger brother of X; [ 93 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection ; [ 94 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of X be performed within a maximal of one month starting on September 5, 2019, and the recommendations be followed, including any other evaluation which could be recommended without any delay; [ 95 ] ORDERS that X benefit from a follow-up with a pediatrician and that ADHD be re-evaluated within a maximal one month starting on September 5, 2019, and all recommendations be followed, including medication; [ 96 ] ORDERS that X be evaluated to determine if he suffers from a FASD within a maximal one month starting on September 5, 2019, and that all recommendations be followed without any delay; [ 97 ] ORDERS that a psychoeducational assessment of X be performed within a maximal one month starting on September 5, 2019, and recommendations be followed without any delay; [ 98 ] ORDERS that all the evaluations ordered by the Court be filed in the court’s record, upon receipt; [ 99 ] ORDERS that those evaluations be performed by private professionals if no one is available in the public sector; [ 100 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to a complete copy of the following files: the mother’s pregnancy follow-up (2001-2002), X’s medical and schooling files; [ 101 ] ORDERS that all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation receive a complete copy of those three files including a copy of the psychological assessment made in November 2010, and a copy of this present decision; [ 102 ] AUTHORIZES all the medical professionals involved in X’s situation to have access to any other documents they consider relevant; [ 103 ] AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in X’s situation to exchange information between them and with the Director of Youth Protection regarding the diagnostics, the recommendations and the involvement in the follow-ups;

[ 104 ] ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by his situation; [ 105 ] AUTHORIZES the integration in the foster family of Ms. E only when all the evaluations required will have been done and the reports obtained; [ 106 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to assist the mother to obtain a reference to see a psychologist if she still wishes it; [ 107 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are endangered; [ 108 ] ORDERS that the adolescent, and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 109 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school or any other place of learning on a regular basis; [ 110 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the foster family receive the services of an external educator during the progressive integration and until the end of the present measure; [ 111 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the adolescent; [ 112 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to address her alcohol consumption issue through Social Services or AA meetings; [ 113 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and the mother be facilitated and that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 114 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent, his mother and his foster family; [ 115 ] 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; [ 116 ] 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; [ 117 ] SUBMITS the present decision to the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales to rule on the opportunity to raise charges for contempt of court against people who do not respect the decision rendered under the Youth Protection Act and on the application of

section 134

a) of the Youth Protection Act against the Director of Youth Protection; [ 118 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, according to

section 96 of the Youth Protection Act , to notify this decision and a copy of the court file to the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales; [ 119 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 120 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Ungava Tulattavik C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 121 ] THE WHOLE until December 20, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Ana-Maria Mocanu and Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Dates of hearing: August 8 and September 5, 2019