2019 QCCQ 14835, 2019 QCCQ 14835

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911144 2019 QCCQ 14835 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002097-175 DATE: September 5, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 9, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [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 […] in Town B, district A ( Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 23, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to Ms.

C, the aunt. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow an immediate return of the child with her parents and recommends that she be entrusted to a foster family with a progressive reintegration under the mother’s care, as soon as the situation allows for it, until May 7, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me St-Amand. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still in danger and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The child, who is 7 and a half years old, is present and represented by Me Synnett. She agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] X has an older sister, Y, who is 9 years old. The Court is also seized with her situation. History of the situation [ 7 ] On November 23, 2017 , the situation of X and her sister Y was submitted to the Court. At that time, the parents were separated and the father had the custody of the two girls. The mother was living in Town B and had irregular contacts with her daughters.

X revealed that she had been sexually abused by her father. The DYP entrusted the two girls under the paternal grandmother’s care. The grandmother noted that the children seemed to be more relax since they were with her. The father denied the alleged sexual abuses. The mother was not in a position to take care of the children. Despite the fact that the children’s version changed many times during the police investigation, the youth chamber concluded that the evidence indicated that X had been the victim of sexual abuse.

During the investigation, the mother was totally absent and never supported her daughters in this difficult time. The Court declared the security and development of the child in danger [1] and entrusted her to her paternal grandmother until the end of November 2018, and authorized reintegration at the mother’s place if the situation allowed for it. [ 8 ] On November 23, 2018 , the Court reviewed the decision. Since the last order, the child is living with her paternal aunt and she is doing well. The father exercised frequent contacts under the supervision of family members.

As the mother lived in Town B, the contacts were less frequent with her. The mother would like to be able to have her daughters under her care, but she does not receive

services because no request for collaboration was made with the A centre. She does not know how she could receive services and demonstrate that she is able to take care of her daughters. The Court maintained the children under their aunt’s care until August 7, 2019, with a reintegration with the mother if possible. The Court also ordered that the B DYP obtain the collaboration of A Center. Facts [ 9 ] X and her sister have remained at their paternal aunt since the last order and they are doing very well. [ 10 ] They had a few visits with their mother in the North and in Town B, and the visits went very well.

Unfortunately, during Christmas Holidays, even if the mother was in the North, the aunt refused that a sleepover is organized, so the access took place only during the day. The DYP worker, who was assigned only two weeks ago, ignores if an intervention was made on this aspect. [ 11 ] The aunt would like to keep the children and she is scared that the mother could resume their care.

The DYP worker had to explain to her that the objective of the intervention is to help the parents to take care of their children themselves. [ 12 ] Regarding the past sexual abuses, the child never speaks about it and according to the DYP worker, she does not seem to be affected. [ 13 ] The DYP worker mentions that the child is on a waiting list to be followed by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist. [ 14 ] In June 2019, a DYP worker from the North took advantage of her stay in Town B in order to meet the mother and to visit her apartment. The meeting was generally positive, and the mother was very collaborative.

The main concern of the DYP is the fact that her boyfriend does not have the custody of his child and the reason remains unknown. [ 15 ] The Court asked the DYP worker to clarify the aspect of the phone calls, as the application alleges that the contacts are consistent, while the complementary report mentions that the mother rarely communicates with her daughters to prevent them from crying and being sad after the communication.

As she was assigned only two weeks ago, the worker is not able to specify the frequency. [ 16 ] Despite the last order and despite her requests, the mother did not receive services from the B centre. The DYP worker recognized that the file was forgotten, and the request was finally made on August 20, 2019, even if the revision hearing should have taken place at the beginning of August 2019. [ 17 ] Since the request was made, the mother is on a waiting list to be met by a DYP worker in Town B.

When the collaboration will start, the DYP plans to start the reintegration at the mother’s place. [ 18 ] The DYP worker knows that the mother would like to be prepared for this integration. The mother would like the integration to be a success, and she has a lot of questions. For now, the plan is to integrate the children with the mother in December 2019. [ 19 ] The request for the psychological evaluation was also forgotten. The high level of turnover at the DYP office explains the delay of interventions.

The request was finally processed also in August 2019. [ 20 ] The report mentions that the mother would like to speak to the Court, so even if she was reluctant, the undersigned invited her to testify. She expressed her deep wish to have her daughters at home with her. But at the same time, she admits being scared, as she was raised in a small community, with all her family around her. She never raised children in a big city and she is frightened. She has a lot of questions, but no one is available to answer them. She calls the DYP offices, but she always ends-up on the answering machine.

She received no callback or phone call from the DYP in Town B. She feels lonely, but she really wants to be ready to receive her daughters. Analysis [ 21 ] The evidence reveals that the mother is more than ready to take care of her daughters. She has no personal issues, she has a job as a translator for the hospital, and she has an appropriate apartment. She only needs answers to her questions. She is scared to raise her children in such a big city.

She lacks the self-confidence to do so. [ 22 ] The situation should have allowed the children to integrate their mother’s domicile at least for the beginning of the school year 2019-2020. But because the file was forgotten, the collaboration was not requested and the mother never received services, therefore she still has questions. [ 23 ] The Court explained to the mother that the most important thing for the children is to be with their mom, to enjoy time with her and to be loved by her every day. The place where they live is not important as long as the family is reunited.

The Court knows that the mother is ready to have her daughters. She just has a lack of confidence and it is her right to receive services and to be reassured. Her desire to have answers demonstrates all her willingness to raise her children in good conditions. [ 24 ] Considering the evidence and the admission from the DYP to the facts that this file was forgotten for one year, the Court declares that the rights of the children and the mother were wronged by the DYP.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still in danger; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the rights of the child and the mother have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child to their maternal aunt C, as foster family if she is accredited as such;

[ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of the mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 30 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection plans to start this reintegration in December 2019; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the children and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be increased to prepare the reintegration and occur minimally once a week by phone; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection from A receive the collaboration of the Director of Youth Protection of B for the mother within a maximum of one month; [ 36 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to keep the mother informed about the situation of her daughters; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services regarding her specific situation, especially regarding sexual abuse; [ 38 ] ORDERS that X be evaluated by a specialist, a psychologist or a sexologist to prevent premature or risky sexual behaviour within a maximum of two months; [ 39 ] ORDERS that all recommendations be followed; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection provides specific help and counselling to Ms.

C, the aunt, to help her to intervene with an abused child; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the family and the foster family; [ 42 ] 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; [ 43 ] 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; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until May 7, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Caroline Daniel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the child Me Félix St-Amand, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 5, 2019