2014 QCCQ 8668, 2014 QCCQ 8668

Protection de la jeunesse — 141045 2014 QCCQ 8668 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000403-097 DATE: March 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], a.r.h., exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […], […] at Town A, district A, […] Applicant -and- X, residing at […], […] at Town B, district B, […] Child -and- MRS B, residing at C.P. […] at Town B, district B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1) and 75 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review and extension of a decision rendered by Bélanger J. concerning X, born on […], 2002. [ 2 ] At the hearing all the parties are present and represented by counsel. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present case does not raise any litigious issue since the parties recognize that the security and development of the adolescent are still endangered and consent to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection.

The Director is requesting that X continue to be entrusted to a reception center until the end of the school year, followed by her integration in a foster home until her majority. However, counsel for the applicant does admit that seeking an order until the child's majority is premature at this stage. [ 4 ] The situation of the adolescent needs clarification in regards to the life project that was first considered and that is no longer an option. Moreover, the mother wishes to clarify her intentions in regards to her daughter.

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 5 ] On February 26, 2013, Bélanger J. ordered that the chid be entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of one year. This came about because the child developed serious behavioural problems that prevented her to live in a foster family until majority as ordered by the Court in 2011.

As a result, since the beginning of the Director's involvement in the child's life, she has been in five different foster families plus a year stay in a rehabilitation center. [ 6 ] Over the years and because of difficulties in her early childhood, X has developed an attachment disorder that translates by oppositional behaviour. Last year, the child also expressed her pain by acts of self-harm and suicide thoughts. At the school the child was attending before her placement at the reception center, she adopted a tough girl attitude.

This led her to bullying others or to be a victim of the same kind of treatment by her peers. [ 7 ] Although X ceased self-injurious behaviour, signs of depression and sadness have been noticed. She still has trouble expressing her emotions in a timely manner. She lets her feelings build up until she expresses them in anger outbursts. Last spring, she started attending A School. This has turned out to be a positive experience in X's life. She has healthy friendships, her teacher appreciates her and she can expect to pass her school year provided she continues to work and stays at the same school.

If not she will fall behind two years.

[ 8 ] The child is able to follow the re-education program offered at the reception center in terms of respecting the routine and the provided structure. She has less anger outbursts and she is slowly improving her social skills. However, she still needs help with her anger management. According to the applicant, X will benefit from a psychological follow-up within the next couple of weeks. This is overdue considering the previous court order and the child's needs. [ 9 ] Until last September visits between the child and the mother were going well and occurring on a regular basis.

After that, the mother's collaboration was more difficult and the contacts stopped from November 2013 to January 2014. Visits with the mother resumed in January. The mother's absence affected X who has developed a sense of abandonment where her mother is concerned. From the evidence gathered, X does not trust her mother. Although the mother's cooperation with the Director of Youth Protection is generally good, she has shown much instability during the last year. [ 10 ] The mother has two other children with Mr C. From the mother's own admission, violence and substance abuse were well rooted in that relationship.

The couple broke things off in the fall. Considering that the Director of Youth Protection is also involved in the family's life concerning her two other children, the mother says she is willing to stay away from Mr C for the sake of her children. The fear of loosing custody of those children seems to be the mother's main motivation. She is presently living in a woman shelter in Town B.

Through a native housing association she has rented an apartment that she will move into as soon as she can obtain a phone line in order to stay in close contact with Youth Protection workers. [ 11 ] In her testimony the mother says she is committed to show X that she can be stable. This is why she wishes to live in Town B in order to be close to her daughter. Further questioned by X's lawyer as to her true understanding of how her instability affects the child, the mother became impatient. The Court construes this outburst of impatience as fear of not being taken seriously, despite her efforts.

However, she must try to understand her daughter's feelings. [ 12 ] The maternal grandmother remains the most significant person in the child's life. The child visits her on a regular basis. These visits are important for X, although the Director must keep its eyes wide opened in order to make sure that this environment remains safe for her considering the grandmother's drinking habits.

Despite the grandmother's personal issues she has always been there for her granddaughter. [ 13 ] In support of her main recommendation, the applicant believes that the child needs stability and the structure of the rehabilitation center in order for her to finish her school year. Afterwards, the goal is to find the right foster family for the child preferably in Town B.

Bringing X back in her community means she would be attending her old school that is unable to provide, among other things, counselling services that she will need. [ 14 ] The Court believes the applicant's recommendations are for the most part reasonable and in the child's best interest. As previously mentioned, counsel for the applicant admits, as does her client, that it is too soon for any long-term order. The first life plan put in place for X failed.

It is important for the applicant to take the time to find the right foster family for X, taking into account the child's attachment disorder and all that she has already been through.

The Court understands and supports the applicant's goal, which is to find the right family like setting, but things must be done gently. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS that the situation of A, born on […], 2002, is still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in a rehabilitation center until the end of June 2014, followed by integration in a foster home; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the mother for a period of nine months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child receive a follow-up with a psychologist, child psychiatrist and any other specialist required by her situation, as long as necessary; [ 21 ] ALLOWS the visits of the child in a foster family during her stay at the reception center; [ 22 ] ALLOWS contacts between the child and her siblings as well as with the maternal grandmother as long as they are in the best interest of the child and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities and in presence of a third party if deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child attend school and RECOMMENDS that she finishes her school year at A School; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES all professionals involved in the case to exchange information pursuant to the attendance as to the evolution of the file in general.

However, the patient-professional privilege will remain for rest; [ 26 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate for the purpose of executing the present judgment;

[ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse B Lawyer for the applicant M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the child M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Martineau, Daoust, Boulianne, Pelletier Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: February 26, 2014