2018 QCCQ 11266, 2018 QCCQ 11266

Protection de la jeunesse — 181954 2018 QCCQ 11266 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Division No. 640-41-001301-107 DATE: March 26, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE BEAUCHEMIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2001 Adolescent ______________________________________________________________________ [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 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR, c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ JB3406 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 (the “Director”) submitted an application to the Court for the review of the decision rendered on February 13, 2017, entrusting the adolescent to a foster home and ordering various assistance measures, including follow-up by social services for one year. [ 2 ] The Director alleged a long series of facts.

This judgment refers to those facts. [ 3 ] The Director recommends that the Court entrust the adolescent to Youth Healing Services for three months, with a return to his mother’s care when the situation allows it, and that it order several assistance measures, including follow-up by social services for the same period. [ 4 ] The adolescent and his mother generally admit the facts alleged, while the father knew nothing about most of them. The parties agree with the Director’s recommendations. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals the following facts. The adolescent is 16 years old.

Since the last Court order, he has been entrusted to three different foster families. After goose break in 2017, he was entrusted to two different foster homes in Town A, where he stayed until January 18, 2018. [ 6 ] On December 12, 2017, he attempted suicide by taking pills. He was then sent to Town B on a suicide watch. On the same day, the foster parents requested that he be removed from their care, stating that he would display this type of behaviour after contact with his mother. Notwithstanding this request, the adolescent returned to Town A, to the same foster home.

[ 7 ] On January10, 2018, he said that he was cutting himself and that he wanted to die after breaking up with his girlfriend. Two days later, he was sent to Town B, but after examination, he was found to be depressed but not suicidal. On January 18, 2018, upon his discharge from Town B, he was transferred to Town C as the foster family declared they could not care for him. [ 8 ] Since then, he has been in Town C, in a foster home where he was placed before, and is reported to be doing well.

The reality seemed to be different, as stated in the Revision Report, at 3: He reported that the foster home parents drink every night and he can hear people coming in and out in the middle of the night. He also reports that everybody sleeps during the day. He stated this is one of the reasons why he is not able to go to school because there is not structure and nobody wakes him up in the morning. [1] ( sic ) [ 9 ] The adolescent is not talkative. He refuses to see a psychologist. He does not show any interest in attending school or in working. The only thing he wants is to live in Town D.

The social worker testified. She knew nothing about what was going on in that foster family . The last time she met with him, he was at home, playing a game on Xbox when he should have been at school, and he asked the worker to leave the premises. The youth worker met with the adolescent once a month and it was only on March 16, 2018, that he divulged his living conditions in that foster home. He lived with that family from January 2018 until last week, when the mother arrived. The foster parents has told the social worker that the adolescent was doing well in their foster home.

The foster home was closed after the Director’s inquiry. When the adolescent was entrusted to those people, the foster home was a regular foster home accredited by the Director. During follow-up by social services, the foster parents were not met. [ 10 ] The adolescent would like to go back to Town D, where his mother still lives, in her daughter C’s home. She has had contact with her son, mainly through Facebook. She stated that she has been sober for two years. C’s home is being evaluated as a foster home. [ 11 ] The father has maintained irregular contact with his son.

He regularly drinks 12 cans of beer before going to bed. He minimizes his consumption. He lives at his camp in Town E. [ 12 ] Both parents cooperate with youth protection services minimally, essentially only concerning their contact with the adolescent. [ 13 ] The Revision Report states, at 2, that the adolescent “is known to struggle with stability”. That is easily understandable. On September 17, 2010, a judgement was rendered according to an Draft Agreement signed by the parties whereby the child and his siblings were entrusted to foster homes.

On April 7, 2011, the Court entrusted the child to a foster home until June 2011. On June 1, 2011, the Court ordered the child’s placement in the foster family of D and E, until the child is of full age. They declined to foster the child because of his major behavioural problems: he did not follow the rules, disrespected the foster parents, did not attend school and played constantly with his Xbox. On January 2, 2014, he was placed at his aunt’s home. The paternal aunt and her husband are both intoxicated in the child’s presence. The child refused to go back with them and he was placed at Youth Healing Services.

The child has been in seven different foster homes. On January 20, 2014, he was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until January 30, 2014, and then until February 26, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Judge Lucille Chabot wrote the following: ( 29) During the meeting the youth opens up about what he has encountered during his foster placement with Mrs [D] and Mr [E]. According to him he has been exposed to violence and dramatic events during his stay at their place . [ 14 ] She entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre for six months.

On September 9, 2014, the Court prolonged that placement for six additional months. In March 2015, he once again entered the foster home of F and G. [ 15 ] On October 7, 2015, the Court entrusted the adolescent until he is of full age to his sister’s foster family, H. On November 9, 2016, he attempted suicide and returned to G. [ 16 ] On February 13, 2017, when the Court reviewed the said Court order, the adolescent was in the foster home of E. At that time, the undersigned wrote the following, at 7and 10: Evidently, the adolescent is in a bad mood everywhere.

He stated that living in the city is too demanding on him. He gets overwhelmed easily and he becomes frustrated. He misses living in the bush where he can find solace. . . . The adolescent has to heal from a past of abuse, hurt and abandonment, as stated in the court report. He needs psychological support and seems to be open to such a service. [ 17 ] The undersigned maintains that the adolescent’s situation has not changed. He was born in a dysfunctional family known for neglect and alcohol abuse. He has lived mainly in problematic foster homes.

The last one must be included in that group. [ 18 ] It is shocking to read the description in the Court Report of the adolescent’s last foster home. At least the Revision Report is honest. Nevertheless, it raises the question of how the Director assesses foster homes. It is well known that the communities in the North are quite small. We often hear in Court that everyone knows what is going on in the houses, which are unfortunately overcrowded. Not only is such a foster home not helpful, but it is a disaster for an adolescent who is given such a life model by the Director, who is supposed to protect him.

The whole situation raises the question of the seriousness of the Director’s assessments of the foster families. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] ALLOWS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X are still in danger.

AS MEASURES DEEMED TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST, THE COURT: [ 21 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted for three months to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection service; [ 22 ] ORDERS that all contact between the adolescent and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the terms and degree of supervision; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive specific health care and health services such as follow-up by a psychologist; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend a school or another place of learning; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the adolescent cooperate with the [social community] worker; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from all violent behaviour in the presence of the adolescent; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and his family for one year; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who will see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a bleu-penciled out copy of this judgement be sent to the Commission d’enquête sur les relations entre les Autochtones et certains services publics au Québec, also known as Commission Viens.

SIGNED IN MONTRÉAL April 24, 2018 LUCILLE BEAUCHEMIN J.C.Q. Mtre. Adelia Ferreira Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the adolescent Mtre. Félix Pigeon Counsel for the mother Mtre. Michel Grenier Counsel for the father Date of hearing: March 26, 2018