2022 QCCQ 14538, 2022 QCCQ 14538

Protection de la jeunesse — 229019 2022 QCCQ 14538 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002299-193 DATE: April 12, 2022 (written judgment rendered on May 19, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review a decision rendered on November 10, 2021, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until she reaches her majority. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) also asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are endangered under 38 (d) (1) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The DYP submits that the situation of the youth got worse and required that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with a gradual reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, the whole until April 30, 2023.

Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Michaël Pereira. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] X is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures.

History of the Situation [ 7 ] On April 24, 2019 , the Court rendered provisional measures and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. The parents were authorized to make visits, but went only once on a possibility of 12. The child answered well to the Group Home structure. [ 8 ] On June 3, 2019 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. X was 12 years old. Since October 2017, the child and her family are followed by the DYP services because of a situation of neglect and a risk for the child to be sexually abused by C.

The voluntary measures were renewed and in September 2018, it was noted that the child started to display behavioural issues. Since that date, the child is entrusted to a foster family. The behavioural issues (not attending school, staying out late, smoking cigarettes) becoming worse, the foster family gave up in February 2019. The parents had made promises to their child and doing so they sabotaged the placement. The child came back at her parents’ place.

They had difficulty providing food and they allow at their place, the father’s son, who came back from detention, after serving a sentence for sexual assault on a minor. [ 9 ] The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [2] , entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre

until June 20, 2020, and authorized a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it. The Court ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed, and ordered a prohibition of contacts between the child, D and C, the whole until June 30, 2020. [ 10 ] In December 2019 , a speech-language assessment was performed and specific recommendations were made for the school and the professional involved, to ensure a good comprehension and to facilitate her learning. [ 11 ] In May 2020, a psychological evaluation was performed.

X is waiting for a hearing surgery. [ 12 ] On June 3, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. X was able to improve her behaviour to the point that the DYP had started integration in a foster family. The parents were able to improve their situation and were collaborative, but they did not respect the prohibition of contacts between the youth and potential sexual abusers. Also, events of conjugal violence continued to occur. The Court entrusted the youth to a foster family and took judicial notice that the DYP intended to reunite the children in the same foster family.

The Court reiterated the prohibition of contacts and ordered that the recommendation set out by Dr. Beltempo be implemented without any delay, the whole until May 31, 2021. [ 13 ] On November 10, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence shows that since the last decision X remained with her uncle and aunt in Town A. She respects all the rules set out by her foster family and also at school. She is followed for her hearing impairment and benefits from hearing aids. She had been assessed by a psychologist who recommended various services to be provided. There are delays for the services to be provided.

The parents continued to offer a very good collaboration and to be very concerns by their child wellbeing, but they did not take any steps to improve their situation. The foster parents are very good models for the youth. They collaborate very well with the DYP and with the school. They make her participate in many various activities and they always welcome the parents at their place to facilitate the contacts with the youth. The Court entrusted the youth to her uncle and aunt until she reaches her majority and ordered that the medical services be provided.

Facts [ 14 ] The parents recognized that since the last decision, their situation remained the same. They continued to display alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues for which they did not seek help. [ 15 ] But as before, they maintained a great interest to have news about their daughter and to have regular contacts with her. [ 16 ] X started a loving relation with Mr. E, who is 20 years old. She had sexual relations with him, and she pretended to be pregnant by him.

X was made aware of the fact that this relation was illegal due to her age. [ 17 ] Despite the measures taken by the foster parents to protect her, X went out during the night and went to Mr. E’s place. X refused to respect her foster parents’ rules. [ 18 ] Moreover, the youth stopped attending school regularly. [ 19 ] The foster parents were very present and supportive, but the youth refused to respect their authority. Seeing that they would be unable to ensure her safety, they informed the DYP about their incapacity to continue the placement.

X was entrusted to another foster family on immediate protective measures. [ 20 ] At this new foster family, the situation did not improve. She became violent at the DYP office to the point that the police intervention had been needed. She was offered to speak with the Social Services, but she refused. [ 21 ] X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre under provisional measures rendered on December 20, 2021.

She went to a rehabilitation centre in Town B. [ 22 ] X respected the rules well at the centre, but quickly, her key worker and the psychologist mentioned that X has severe developmental delays which often leads her in being rejected or bullied. For the key worker, X functions as a 6-year-old child. [ 23 ] Despite the placement, her sister and her aunt (previous foster family) maintained regular contacts with her.

Indeed, the aunt still has the desire to resume the care of X and hope that she will be back home soon after having addressed her behavioural issues. [ 24 ] After more investigation, the key worker and the psychologist recommended that the DYP ask that X be transferred in a rehabilitation centre in the North. Indeed, according to their opinion, it would be important that X receive schooling in her maternal language.

Also, acknowledging the needs of rehabilitation services, they consider that this unit in Town B is not adapted to her specific needs and that maintaining her there could be detrimental. [ 25 ] The DYP made the proper request to have her transferred in a rehabilitation centre in Town C. [ 26 ] What is about the implementation of Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations? Analysis [ 27 ] The evidence reveals that she needs rehabilitation services, but the Center A is not appropriate to her needs.

This place is not adapted to her, and the key worker, as well as the psychologist, recommends that she be entrusted to another unit more suitable and that she received schooling in her first language. [ 28 ] The DYP made request for her to be transferred in Town C, but there is no place available. Considering the evidence to the fact that the placement in the North is in her best interest and that the placement in Town B is in contradiction with her best interest, the Court has no hesitation to order that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre in Town C. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are still endangered; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2007, are also endangered under 38 (d) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre in the Town C Region; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the youth be gradually reintegrated with a previous foster family as soon as the situation allows it; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are endangered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 37 ] 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; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth not come into contact with certain people designated by the Court, namely Mr. E, Mr. D and Mr. C; [ 39 ] ORDERS that Mr.

E not come into contact with the adolescent; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 41 ] ORDERS the implementation of the recommendations set out by Dr.

Beltempo including any recommendations regarding the schooling; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE until April 30, 2023. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: April 12, 2022