2017 QCCQ 8496, 2017 QCCQ 8496

Protection de la jeunesse — 173392 2017 QCCQ 8496 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 635-41-000675-154 DATE: January 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Father and C, residing and domiciled in City A, District A Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 95(1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of 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 A (D.Y.P.) asked the Court to review the decision made on June 14, 2016, concerning the child, X, born on [...], 2003. [ 2 ] The parents and the biological mother were present.

All the parties were represented by a lawyer. [ 3 ] The parents and the biological mother are aware that the adolescent needs professional help and specialized services that are only available in Montréal. They ask for contact with their daughter. [ 4 ] The main issue is to determine contact between the adolescent and her family. [ 5 ] The adolescent is asking to go back with her biological mother but if it is not possible, she agrees to stay in a rehabilitation centre.

She also requests visits with the family. [ 6 ] On June 14, 2016, the Honourable Jean Gravel rendered a judgment with the following conclusions : [13] GRANTS the motion; [14] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are still in danger; [15] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a reintegration as soon as possible with her parents or with the biological mother, Ms C; [16] ORDERS that the child, the parents and the biological mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [17] ORDERS that the child and the parents report in person at regular interval to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [18] ORDERS that the child receive specific healthcare and health services such as a follow-up for her mental health, therapy and/or trauma support services, as well as, if requested for the parents and biological mother to participate in such services; [19] ORDERS that the child attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [20] ORDERS that the child be authorized to be in an English school as per her request;

[21] ORDERS that the child and the family receive the services of an external educator when the reintegration process begins; [22] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services concerning their alcohol and drug related issues, as well as acquiring appropriate discipline methods; [23] ORDERS that the contacts between the child, the parents and the biological mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision or a third party deemed appropriate by the Director of Youth Protection; [24] ORDERS that the parents refrain from using any form of aggression or violence towards the child; [25] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign medical and psychological documentation when the parents do not consent to said documentation in a timely manner; [26] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to have the child undergo an evaluation and/or treatment and/or mental health services in a medical setting (program or hospital setting) if deemed necessary by the professionals; [27] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [28] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [29] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures; [30] THE WHOLE until December 15 th 2016. [ 7 ] Since the last Court hearing, the adolescent has been living at the [Unit A] of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A. [ 8 ] Because she was in a state of crisis numerous times, she was sent to the [Unit B] for intensive care very often during the last months.

Since June 2016, she has been hospitalized ten times for suicidal ideation and physical laceration. [ 9 ] When she is in a state of crisis, she can be dangerous for herself and for the staff members of the unit. [ 10 ] During her placement, a few doctors tried to assess her situation but she refused to cooperate. [ 11 ] On June 13, 2016, Dr. Michele Larose, a child psychiatrist, tried to visit the youth but the youth became disorganized and threatened her. [ 12 ] On November 2, 2016, she met the youth and observed that she was homesick. She also assessed that she was still undermined by the passing of her cousin.

She referred her to the Institut Pinel in order to assess her dangerosity and the best living environment for her. [ 13 ] In fact, X was in crisis almost every two days. Many resources were necessary to improve her situation. Some improvements were recently observed by the educators of the [Unit A]. [ 14 ] She saw a nurse on a daily basis for her medication. She had a follow-up with a psychiatrist once or twice a week and saw a psychiatrist from Pinel every two weeks.

She will receive help from art therapy by the educators of the centre. [ 15 ] She is also waiting for an answer from IVAC to receive specific follow-up for sexual abuse. [ 16 ] She is not currently attending school despite the fact that numerous attempts have been made to provide her with an educational setting. [ 17 ] The entire family cares about the youth and talks to her on a regular basis. The cooperation of the family with the Director of Youth Protection is difficult. The main issue is the request for transportation of the family members to visit X at the centre. [ 18 ] The biological mother, Ms.

C, visited the child seven times. She received help for travelling expenses once. All other expenses have been assumed by her. [ 19 ] The parents, Ms. A and Mr. B, did not visit the child for one year due to the expensive travel costs to go to Montréal. [ 20 ] There are some tensions between the parents and the youth protection services. They blame the D.Y.P. for taking their daughter and placing her in the south, and consequently taking her away from their Inuit roots. ANALYSIS [ 21 ] The child has been showing very serious behavioural disturbances.

She displays aggressive behaviour, suicidal ideation and is in a state of crisis very regularly. [ 22 ] There was very recently a slight improvement in her situation. [ 23 ] She is really homesick and she finds it very difficult to be away from her Inuit culture. [ 24 ] The Court believes that it is important for her to visit her family up north on a regular basis. Considering the fact that her emotional state is still unstable, those visits will be conditional on the opinion of a psychiatrist that there is no danger to herself or others.

[ 25 ] At this moment, the best living environment remains a rehabilitation centre.

She currently receives a lot of specialized services not available in the northern community. [ 26 ] The Court expects that with a clear calendar for the visits of the child to her community, all parties will focus on positive solutions for the well-being of the child. [ 27 ] The Court explains clearly to X that the visits depend on her behaviour and her cooperation. [ 28 ] The parents and the biological mother will have to support the rehabilitation process in the best interest of the child. [ 29 ] The Court also wants to underline the fact that it is not acceptable for a 13-year old child who is placed in a rehabilitation centre and entrusted to the D.Y.P. not to attend school for such a period of time.

Finding a way to ensure that the child attend school or another place of learning should be a priority. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] REVIEWS AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on June 14, 2016; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of X, born on [...], 2003, continues to be in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a return as soon as possible to the home of her parents or of the biological mother, Ms.

C; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the placement in a rehabilitation centre be for a maximum period of six months. If the situation requires a longer period, then X’s file will have to be reviewed; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child, the parents and the biological mother take an active

part in the application of all measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child, the parents and the biological mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services such as follow-up for her mental health, therapy or trauma support services, and that the parents and biological mother participate in such services, if requested; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program for developing skills and autonomy; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s family receive the services of an external educator when the reintegration process begins; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from using any form of aggression or violence towards the child; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until December 15, 2017; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from visits up north with her biological mother or her parents; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a minimal visit be organized for the holiday period; [ 44 ] ORDERS that visits be organized every six weeks, except if it is not recommended by a psychiatrist because the child can be dangerous to herself or to people around her; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the visit be for the length and on the conditions decided by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 46 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this judgment; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of this judgment; [ 48 ] THE WHOLE until December 15, 2017. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Kimon Kling Attorney for the child Mtre. Geneviève Apollon

Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the parents Mtre. Marianne Léonard Attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: December 1, 2016