2018 QCCQ 17326, 2018 QCCQ 17326

Protection de la jeunesse — 188389 2018 QCCQ 17326 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 22825-095 Date: November 1, 2018 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JD2620 JUDGMENT Sections 95 and 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.

P-34.1 ) 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 1, 2018, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with an Application for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on August 11, 2016, whereby the now eight year-old child, X , was entrusted to foster care with aid, counsel and assistance, until he reaches the age of majority, on [...], 2027. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with a similar application regarding the child’s brother whose situation is addressed in a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application for revision dated May 2, 2018, are as follows: 3.1. up to May 1, 2018, the child and sibling remained in the care of C and D; 3.2. for about the past year, X has been demonstrating certain behavioural issues at school, such as stealing, lying, verbal and physical aggression with peers; 3.3.

X has also demonstrated difficult behaviour at home, such as lying and not respecting rules and routine; 3.4.

Y has been demonstrating the same type of behavioural issues, but to a lesser extent than X; 3.5. despite encouragement by the youth protection worker and resource department, the foster parents did not follow through on measures recommended to correct the situation; 3.6. the school staff implemented measures to support the children; 3.7. the school staff also recommended that the foster parents register the children for particular support program; 3.8. the foster parents did not register the children at the program recommended by the school; 3.9. the foster parents minimized the gravity of the concerns regarding the impact on the children;

3.10. on May 1, 2018, immediate protective measures were invoked and the children were placed in a new foster family; 3.11. C and D will no longer be recognized as a foster family; 3.12. the mother has not had contact with the children and has not participated in the intervention; 3.13. the father remains absent from the children’s lives and has not collaborated with the intervention (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] On September 5, 2018, immediate protective measures were invoked as the child’s behaviour became uncontrollable and the child’s new foster family feared for his and their safety.

The child’s provisional placement in a rehabilitation center was ordered by the Court on September 6, 2018. [ 6 ] At the hearing on the merits on November 1, 2018, the Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center until December 15, 2018 and, thereafter, that he be returned to his new foster family, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 7 ] The mother, though duly served, failed to appear for the hearing and the Court proceeded in her absence.

She did, however, express her agreement to the proposed measures to the worker [2] . [ 8 ] The father could not be served as his whereabouts are unknown. [ 9 ] Me Pelletier, on behalf of the child, approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-3 to D-5 as evidence: D-3: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated June 21, 2018; D-4: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 31, 2018; D-5: Addendum II, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated October 26, 2018. [ 11 ] In

summary, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that the child’s parents are still unable to care for him. [ 12 ] The mother continues to reside in [Region A] and has not seen her son since June 2015. [ 13 ] The father’s whereabouts remain unknown. [ 14 ] The child’s behavioral problems escalated in recent months and the foster family of C and D failed to react appropriately: The concerns raised in the recent months were chronic and ongoing. Despite the unfounded signalement reports, it was observed that the foster parents did not acknowledge or take any steps to address the issues.

They did not collaborate; there was a lack of follow through with recommendations; and blame shifting. Most of the care was given via Ms. E and although she was a good advocate for services, it was not seen as being enough to keep the children in Mrs. C and Mr. D’ care.

In April 2018, DYP delegates agreed that it would be in the boys’ best interest if Immediate Protective Measures were invoked to remove them. [3] [ 15 ] Moreover, since the child and his brother were removed from the foster family of C and D in May 2018, they have disclosed more and more troubling incidents of abuse in their former foster home: X [and his brother] corroborated the same information with each other when they disclosed to their current foster mother, the educator, Mr. G and the undersigned that the family members of the previous foster parents spanked them with their bare hands, belt and wires.

They were also kicked, pushed down the stairs, and locked in a dark room in the basement for long periods of time by Ms. C, Mr. D, Ms. E, their son F and Ms. C’s sister. [4] [ 16 ] The brothers claimed not to have informed the Director of Youth Protection earlier out of fear of reprisals from the foster family: X and [his brother] said that they did not inform the DYP about these concerns because they were so scared of the consequences if Mrs. C and Mr.

D found out they told someone. [5] [ 17 ] Since their removal from their former foster home, the brothers have consistently expressed fear of their former foster family and have sought to avoid any reminders of their former life: Considering the nature and chronicity of the current allegations regarding the previous foster parents, and Ms. E, it is recommended that there be a prohibition of contact between the children and these three adults. The boys do not wish to resume contact, and have been observed to regress when the past is discussed [6] (emphasis added).

In addition: X [and his brother] have persistently expressed their unwillingness to have contact with them [the foster family]. The boys have also stated many times that they see the previous foster parents and their daughter in their nightmares and this has triggered fear and anger in them. Essentially, it would appear the children do not feel safe. [7] [ 18 ] Although the brothers claim to be very happy in their new foster home, they remain deeply affected by the trauma they experienced:

Since the boys were placed in their new foster home in May 1, 2018, they have continued to exhibit symptoms of attachment issues and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). […] […] anything that reminds X [or his brother] of the previous foster family or environment is a trigger to anger and fear. […] They both have also demonstrated severe behavioral symptoms in their new foster home. Some of these symptoms include (but are not limited to) anger, sadness, nightmares, fear, and physical and verbal aggression.

They constantly relate their current life to the past, trying to understand why they are cared for differently in their new foster home. [8] [ 19 ] The current foster family appears committed to caring for the children’s needs and the brothers appear to feel that they have found a patient, caring family with whom they can build a trusting relationship: [The brothers] have stated to the undersigned on several occasions that they love their foster parents and their new home. […] They added that their foster parents are kind to them. [9] [ 20 ] Despite X’s more challenging behaviors that led to his provisional placement in a rehabilitation center, the new foster family remains committed to his reintegration to their care. [ 21 ] Given the trauma the boys have experienced, every effort should be made to ensure that the brothers are not separated. [ 22 ] Many services are in place and will be added to help the child manage his behavior: X’s therapist, Ms.

Bouvette-Turcot has reported that although X has stated many times that he is not yet ready to talk about himself; he seems to be willing to receive the service. X has engaged in different forms of play with the therapist and appears to be happy to go for therapy on Wednesdays. [10] […] X is in Grade 3 at the Treatment Program A and attends four days per week. He is expected to attend his regular school A, once weekly. This will commence once he completes his Art Therapy. X is expected to also benefit from behavioural therapy at the Treatment Program A.

The [Treatment Program A] staff stated that they are currently observing X. It is still early to comment on his progress. They have, however, reported instances of aggression. […] It has been reported by the Treatment Program A staff and the foster mother that X can barely read or write. He reads pictures and not words or sentences. A Psycho-Educational Assessment could be beneficial for X. [11] [ 23 ] It should also be noted that the former foster parents filed an application to be granted the status of party to the hearing. Their application was dismissed.

However, they were informed of their right to testify before the Court yet they failed to appear on the day of the hearing. [ 24 ] Under the circumstances, given the uncontradicted evidence and the consent expressed by the mother and on behalf of the child, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 27 ] ORDERS that X remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center until December 15, 2018, and thereafter that he be entrusted to a confidential foster home; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child’s reintegration into the confidential foster home to whom his brother is currently entrusted has already begun and that he will be fully reintegrated by December 15, 2018 to the same confidential foster family as his brother and that the brothers will remain in the same foster family and not be separated; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES respite for X in a rehabilitation center, not to exceed four times per month, for a maximum period of 48 hours; [ 30 ] SUSPENDS contacts between the child and his mother, until she demonstrates genuine motivation to become involved in his life; if such contacts resume, ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into consideration the child’s interest and wishes; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother has not had any contact with the child since June 2015;

[ 32 ] PROHIBITS all contact between the child and his father; [ 33 ] PROHIBITS all contact between the child and all members of his former foster family, including Mrs. C, Mr. D, Ms. E and Mr.

F; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his condition, including psychological counselling for as long as necessary; [ 35 ] ORDERS that X undergo a trauma assessment as soon as possible TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that steps have already been taken in that regard; [ 36 ] ORDERS that he benefit from any services that may be recommended; [ 37 ] ORDERS that he also undergo a psycho-educational assessment; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the recommendations be followed; [ 39 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES the current foster parents to exercise those attributes for the purpose of signing any necessary consents for the child; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain relevant information from the professionals involved with the child and his family; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the mother inform the Director of Youth Protection of any steps taken to improve her situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on November 13, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Angela Nevard Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me François Pelletier Attorney for the child TD/vl