2019 QCCQ 15211, 2019 QCCQ 15211

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910354 2019 QCCQ 15211 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000684-156 DATE: April 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 23, 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 A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] and C, 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 October 31, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre, with reintegration with her grandmother as soon as possible, until June 30, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation allows to return the youth to her father with aid, counselling and assistance until [...], 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are absent and not represented.

Considering that they were duly served, the agreement of the parties and the interest of the youth, the Court proceeds in their absence. [ 4 ] X, who is 17 years old, is present and represented by Me Jennis. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The interested party, Ms. C, is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits all the allegations except 5.8, and she agrees with the measures.

History of the situation [ 6 ] In November 2015 , X was diagnosed by the child psychiatrist with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) which requires adaptation in all the spheres of her life. [ 7 ] On January 5, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The parents were living separately. The mother displayed alcohol consumption issues. X had to take a medication for her anxiety and aggressiveness. The parents disagreed with this medication.

Since she was an infant, X lived with her paternal grandmother, but in August 2015, as the grandmother was overwhelmed with X’s behaviour, the child went to live with her father. The father had anger management issues, and X feared her father. At the end of November 2015, she went to live with her mother and maternal grandmother, but no one was able to impose authority and structure to X.

The DYP found a foster family in Town A, where she would have access to an external educator and to a psychologist. [ 8 ] The Court declared the security and development of X endangered [1] , entrusted her to a foster family and allowed reintegration with the parents in the last three months. The Court also ordered health care services, notably for ASD and the continuation of the follow-up with the child psychiatrist, the whole until the end of October 2016.

[ 9 ] On March 15, 2016 , the DYP filed an application for revision. X did not respect the authority of the foster family, she ran away many times and she put herself in danger. She was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre three weeks after the last hearing and was there since. The Court maintained the placement at the rehabilitation centre with reintegration in the foster family as soon as possible.

The Court also ordered a multidisciplinary evaluation by a child psychologist and a language specialist, and the continuation of the follow-up with the youth psychiatrist, the whole until the end of February 2017. [ 10 ] On March 3, 2017 , the Court noted that X was doing much better in the late months. Before that, she ran away from the Group Home many times, she consumed marijuana. In November 2016, she was hospitalized in Town B for an ectopic pregnancy. The mother was living in Town B and did not exercise regular access to her daughter. The father still displayed anger management issues.

X started having regular contact with her paternal grandmother and the reintegration process was started at this place. The Court maintained X at the rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with reintegration at the grandmother’s place as soon as the situation allows it. The Court also ordered aid, counselling and assistance until the end of November 2017. [ 11 ] On December 18, 2017 , the Court declared the paternal grandmother as an interested party.

In June 2017, X went back living with her grandmother, but she did not respect the rules, she stayed outside late, she did not go to school and she had panic attacks. Her situation deteriorated a lot. X stopped her medication for anxiety. Her aggressiveness increased. The grandmother found knives in X’s bedroom. She was displaying self-harming behaviour and needed stitches for cuts on her arms and legs. She destroyed the interior of the house.

The grandmother was overwhelmed, she left the house as she was scared and left X alone without any supervision. [ 12 ] X was entrusted to a Group Home, but she ran away many times. The grandmother explained to the Court that her granddaughter cannot tolerate noise. Because of that she can’t go to school. At home, she has to switch off the TV and the radio. X confirmed that she ran away from the Group Home because it was too noisy and there was too much stressors.

She really wants to learn, but she said the learning program at the rehabilitation centre are as educational games for little kids. [ 13 ] She told the Court she was ready to do everything the Court will impose, to be sure to stay at her grandmother’s place.

As she is the only family member she has and she is 85 years old, she would like to be present to help her and to spend time with her before she dies. [ 14 ] As the services she would like to benefit from where already offered to her, and considering she needs a more structured environment, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until the end of November 2018. [ 15 ] On October 31, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. X improved her behaviour a lot, but she still needs support because she could have outbursts. She had regular contact with her father and her grandmother.

The father said being ready to collaborate with the DYP if his daughter came back living with him. Doing so the DYP recommended the reintegration at the father’s place, but since the report was signed, the father was unreachable and did not present himself at the court hearing. For this reason, the DYP changed his recommendation for reintegration at the grandmother. It is known that the father as health issues which often brought him to Town B. [ 16 ] The Court asked to adapt the schooling environment to the youth’s needs.

To make sure the integration is a success, the Court ordered that the integration be done step by step, starting by maintaining her at the rehabilitation centre, followed by a placement in a Group Home (less supervision) and finally a placement at the grandmother’s. The Court also ordered that a child psychiatrist assessment of X be performed, and all the recommendations be followed, including any other evaluation which the child psychiatrist could suggest.

The Court invited the child psychiatrist to make any recommendation he or she considers relevant to help X, and to adapt her schooling environment until June 30, 2019. [ 17 ] On February 28, 2019 , on a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted the adolescent to her father. Facts [ 18 ] After the last order, X stayed at the rehabilitation centre of Town C. She went to school and she did very well. She is very artistic and she loves beading.

She is able to make some money by selling her art. [ 19 ] The DYP planned to make her travelling at her grandmother’s place for Christmas and to entrust her, for a short period, in the Group Home of Town C before permanently integrate her at her grandmother’s place. No places were available in Town C. [ 20 ] Moreover, because of a mistake in the plane ticket, she arrives at her grandmother’s place on November 22, instead of arriving on December 20, 2018. The DYP worker was not informed by the staff of the rehabilitation centre. [ 21 ] The DYP was finally informed as X had to go to the hospital.

So X was met by the DYP worker at the end of November. Considering this mistake, X was supposed to go back at the rehabilitation centre to finish her placement, but as a dentist appointment was scheduled, she was authorized to stay in Town C to make sure she won’t miss her appointment. [ 22 ] A few days later, the grandmother had a black eye and the extended family suspected X. The grandmother said X was not responsible. [ 23 ] The father took his responsibility and take X with him more and more. He registered her at school, and she is with him on a full-time basis since after Christmas Holidays.

The school Principal confirmed that X was doing very well. At home, the father also said that everything is fine. [ 24 ] X refused to be assessed by the psychologist, but she is taking good care of the other medical aspect of her life. She is going to see the doctor anytime she needs and she insisted on being present in Town C not to miss her dentist appointment. [ 25 ] The father has important health issues. He had his gallbladder removed. He was supposed to have an eye removal surgery, but his diabetes prevented him from doing so.

That being said, he raised his three children himself and one of his sons should start University soon. The father works in the field of construction.

[ 26 ] His collaboration with the DYP services is much better since X came back under his care. He makes sure that X attend school regularly and he wants her to attend University as her older brother. [ 27 ] Regarding the follow-up ordered by the Court, the DYP worker confirms that the child psychiatrist assessment was not required and she ignores why the external educator was not provided yet. [ 28 ] The DYP worker says that when the child psychiatrist comes in Town C concerning the children followed by her, she receives a phone call.

As she received no news for X, she supposed that the child psychiatrist does not consider it relevant anymore and decided to close the file. Analysis [ 29 ] The situation of X, even if still fragile, is getting much better. She is now with her father who is taking good care of her. [ 30 ] The father has very nice projects for his daughter. It will be important that everyone work together to make that possible. [ 31 ] The Court is very concerned by the facts that X was lost by the rehabilitation centre.

Her situation was entrusted to the DYP, and the DYP himself did not know where she was. [ 32 ] It’s the same thing for the child psychiatrist. The only answer the Court has from the DYP is supposition. The future of X deserves better than supposition. The Court asks this evaluation to make recommendations to facilitate her schooling. She is a good student, she is able to succeed, but as she has a very important personal situation, adaptation should be put in place. Even if she is doing well now, she could do much better with adapted measures.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are still endangered; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the youth under the care of her father; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol issues; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health cares and services; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth benefit from a child psychiatrist follow-up and if this follow-up is not required anymore, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to obtain a letter from the child psychiatrist attesting so; [ 41 ] ORDERS that all recommendations, which the child psychiatrist could make, be followed including any psychological evaluation and/or follow-up; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive services from an external educator if deemed necessary; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 44 ] 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; [ 45 ] 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; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 47 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the child Date of hearing: April 17, 2019