2019 QCCQ 15276, 2019 QCCQ 15276

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910393 2019 QCCQ 15276 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002154-182 DATE: January 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on September 24, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [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 [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 April 20, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2007.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and ordered that the child be entrusted to a foster family until October 31, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and asks to entrust her to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre until May 17, 2019. [ 3 ] The parents are present and represented by Me Lazarov.

They ignore and deny most of the allegations and they would like that the placement at the rehabilitation centre is for six months instead of one year and after the six months that she goes to live with C, her aunt. [ 4 ] X who is 11 years old, is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She ignores and denies most of the allegations, and doesn’t agree to stay at the rehabilitation centre and would like to go with her aunt C. History of the situation [ 5 ] On July 19, 2012 , the situation of X and her siblings was submitted to the court.

The parents admitted their alcohol consumption and wished to receive help to address their issues. They also recognized the conjugal violence. The children were tired of this environment and they were scared. The Court noted that voluntary measures were applied since May 2012, and since the DYP received four reports. The children said there is not enough food at home. X, the youngest one, gives the finger to the DYP worker, to the police officers and hits the DYP worker. She reproduced the violence she saw at home.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were in danger and maintained the children under their parents’ care with aid, counselling and assistance for 12 months. [ 6 ] On June 4, 2013 , a provisional hearing took place and the child is maintained with her parents. [ 7 ] On August 20, 2013 , still on provisional measures, the child was entrusted to a foster family. [ 8 ] On September 5, 2013 , the Court noted that the parents’ situation remained the same and that they did not require for help. That being said, the father would have heart issues and would have stopped consuming.

The parents refused the help of the external educator. The Court insisted on the fact that the parents have to work actively to resolve their issues. The child was entrusted in foster family for four months with aid, counselling and assistance, including an external educator for four months. [ 9 ] On February 6, 2014 , the evidence showed that the father did not work with the DYP worker, as he did not appreciate her, but he worked with the external educator as the relation was good between them. The children went to visit their parents as often as they

want, and the DYP worker had a hard time to manage that. The father was very negative towards the DYP services. The DYP asked a foster placement for twelve months, but the Court considered it too long and entrusted the child for only six months. [ 10 ] On August 6, 2014 , the Court noted that the parents made efforts to improve their situation and were decided to continue in this way. The relation with the DYP services is also getting better. The Court entrusted the child under her parent’s care until June 19, 2015. [ 11 ] On May 7, 2015 , the DYP recommended entrusting the child to a foster family.

X did not want to speak and her situation deteriorated, the one of the parents also. The father was detained for driving and drinking. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for six months with a reintegration with the parents if possible. [ 12 ] On December 2, 2015 , the Court noted that X was doing well at her uncle’s place. The parents did not respect the last order. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for one year. [ 13 ] On November 9, 2016 , as X was now 9 years old, the Court noted that she went to four foster families since the last order.

The last one disengaged herself also as X only wanted to be at her parent’s place. Since X and her siblings have been reintegrated at their parents’ place, the parents improved their situation. The Court maintained the child with her parents with aid, counselling and assistance until June 14, 2017. [ 14 ] On March 1, 2018 , as the previous file was closed, the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted X to a foster family. [ 15 ] On April 20, 2018 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 10 years old at that time.

In February 2018, the father was accused of sexual assault on a child. The DYP intervened. The mother was intoxicated and an immediate protective measure was taken and X entrusted to a foster family. X opposed to this placement, but after few days, she admitted that she was scared at her parent’s place. X had inappropriate sexual behaviour at school and bullied other children. The mother seemed to protect the father, but agreed to insure supervision all the time. Despite this engagement, two days after, the mother was intoxicated and X was alone with her father.

The DYP had difficult to be aware of the true situation as the parent’s version changed all the time, including in front of the Court. X was entrusted to an extended family member, but the parents put pressure on this person. The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered and entrusted her to a foster family until October 31, 2018, with aid, counselling and assistance until April 30, 2019. [ 16 ] On September 20, 2018 , the Court was seized with a provisional hearing and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre.

Facts [ 17 ] At the hearing, the DYP was represented by Ms. [Social Worker 2], manager of applications of measures. [ 18 ] On September 4, 2018, the foster family gave up because of X’s bad behaviour and her non-respect of the rules. As she went to six foster families in 2018, the DYP asked for a provisional placement in a rehabilitation centre. The parents reacted badly to this placement, and the father went to the radio station to explain to the population how the DYP act with his daughter. [ 19 ] The beginning of the placement went well, but quickly the bad behaviour resurfaced.

The parents went to visit her and were disrespectful and aggressive with the staff. They did not respect the curfew. [ 20 ] Regarding the schooling, X has very high difficulties. She is 12 years old, and she does not know her alphabet. [ 21 ] Since the beginning of the school year, X had improvement at school, but she still needs a worker with her to do her homework and a worker in her classroom. [ 22 ] At the end of the school year 2017-2018, the school staff in [Village A] evaluated that X reached the learning of Grade 2.

Once arrived in [Village B] for the beginning of the school year 2018-2019, she was evaluated between kinder garden and Grade 1. Since, an improvement is noted, but she still needs a lot of help. [ 23 ] Her major difficulties are regarding reading. The learning process asks her a big effort. [ 24 ] The DYP worker does not know if service exists in [Village B]’s school to evaluate her learning capacities. She does not think that this service is provided in [Province A]. Doing so, X had never been evaluated and the school compensates with the support of an educator.

Actually no intervention plan was prepared in this situation. According to Ms. [Social Worker 2], this is explained by the facts that only in the village A [1] , 250 files are followed by the department of the application of measures, but only four DYP workers are available to work in those files. [ 25 ] Concerning the parent’s situation, despite no events were reported, X told the worker that the situation at home remains the same regarding the alcohol consumption. [ 26 ] The collaboration with the DYP is better with the mother than the father.

The mother often acts as a mediator between the worker and the father. [ 27 ] The worker agrees with a reintegration in a foster family and would like to start it as soon as possible, but also wants to find the right place to avoid other moving. [ 28 ] At the last meeting between the DYP worker and the parents, the collaboration was better and they suggested that X could be entrusted to an aunt in [Village C]. The aunt was evaluated and the DYP agreed. At the time of the hearing, the parents and X just came back from there as they went for the funeral.

The DYP did not have the chance to meet with the parents since their return to have more detail, but the mother just said that it would not be a good place because there is many young children and X will find that boring. If it is

the case, another option will have to be found. [ 29 ] Regarding the aunt C, the DYP has to evaluate her. She is known as she was foster family for the Director of Youth Protection, but recently closed, following reports on young children. It could be possible for X as she is older and despite those concerns, the DYP worker is open to consider this option. X went there for Christmas and everything went well.

She is also there since she arrived in [Village A] for the court hearing and nothing wrong was reported. [ 30 ] The DYP worker insists on the fact that the collaboration of the parents will be needed to make sure that the integration will be a success. The objective is to stabilize X’s situation to avoid seizing the Court another time. [ 31 ] The father testified.

As the Court asks questions about a potential FASD, he said that his spouse never consume during the pregnancy. [ 32 ] He said that the stay at [Village C] went well and the relation between X and her aunt D is good, but he would also prefer that X be entrusted to C because she has more relatives in [Village A]. [ 33 ] He misses his daughter and they communicate quite every day. He went to see her in October. He saw that her behaviour is better at the centre, but he also mentions that the relation with the other children is not so good. [ 34 ] The father had health issues and would like to take care of himself.

He was not able to be as present as he wishes for the meeting with the DYP as he was frequently absent for health appointment. He also said that the worker frequently change and it’s difficult to create a relation. That being said, in front of the Court, he apologizes for his attitude and the trouble he caused to the DYP. He appreciates the work of the Ms. [Social Worker 2], the manager and agrees to work with her. Analysis [ 35 ] The evidence is clear that the situation of X is still endangered and that she still needs rehabilitation services.

She has behavioural issues and a lot of learning difficulties which are fully recognized by the parents. [ 36 ] The parents also recognized that their collaboration with the DYP was not always optimal. They apologize for that and they admit that their collaboration with the services is in the best interest of their daughter. Indeed, X needs to see that her parents agree with and accept the services. Doing so, the Court invited the parents to keep that in mind and to continue in this way. [ 37 ] The Court is very concerned by the lack of services provided to X.

Even if the Court understands that it’s not possible for four workers to take care of 250 files, if this situation remains unsaid, nothing will change in X’s situation neither in the situation of other children. [ 38 ] The Court doesn’t understand why the school in [Village A] never alerted the DYP. The school staff called the parents, but they did not collaborate. At that time, it was the responsibility of the school to communicate with the DYP. With this information, the DYP had to make sure that the services are rendered to answer X’s needs. [ 39 ] When the services are not available, the DYP has to obtain it.

The question is not “Is it available in the North?” The question is “Does X need it?” As the answer is “yes,” the DYP has to provide it. Ms. [Social Worker 2] did her best. The Court can’t blame her personally. The responsibility of the DYP is to obtain the services deserved by a child as any other child in the province of Quebec in the same situation would benefit. [ 40 ] The Court will order that the appropriate services be provided, and for a question of stability, will impose those measure until the end of the school year.

This will give time to perform the appropriate evaluations and for the school in [Village A], to obtain the services recommended by the evaluations. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2007, are still endangered; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are also endangered according to

section 38 (d) (2) [2] of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the rehabilitation centre of [Village B] until the end of August 2019; [ 45 ] AUTHORIZES a reintegration in the extended family after the end of the school years if the situation allows it; [ 46 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection is agreeing to evaluate all extended family person suggested by the parents; [ 47 ] ORDERS that an evaluation of X’s learning capacities be performed and all the recommendations be followed; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of X be performed to evaluate a potential ADHD and for FASD or other pathology, and that all recommendations be followed; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a psychosexual evaluation of X be performed, and all the recommendations be followed; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a complete copy of X’s medical and schooling files be provided to all the professionals who will have to evaluate her;

[ 51 ] ORDERS that a copy of each evaluation be filed in the court’s record; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the evaluations be explained to the parents; [ 53 ] ORDERS that all recommendations concerning the schooling be provided to the school; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 57 ] ENCOURAGES the parents to seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be facilitated and the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 59 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 60 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 61 ] 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; [ 62 ] 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; [ 63 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 64 ] THE WHOLE until the end of January 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: January 17, 2019