2019 QCCQ 15215, 2019 QCCQ 15215

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910370 2019 QCCQ 15215 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001178-091 DATE: November 2, 2018 (written judgment rendered on March 20, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [...] 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 revise a decision rendered on April 12, 2016, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family, namely that of Ms.

C until [...], 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her foster family and recommends entrusting her to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of the youth are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent.

Considering that the father was duly served, the consent of the parties and the interest of the adolescent, the Court authorizes to proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] X is present and represented by Me Neptune. She admits most of the facts and she agrees with the measures even if she would prefer to be in foster home immediately. Historical situation [ 6 ] On April 28, 2009 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was 7 years old.

At that time, the mother displayed alcohol consumption issues and the father was detained, but he planned to assume the custody of the children (X and her five siblings) once released. The mother was alone to take care of the children and she was overwhelmed. Since few months, the DYP was involved, and voluntary measures were signed to entrust the children in foster families, and after with the mother with services. Since February 5, 2009, X was entrusted to a foster family.

The Court declared that the security and development were in danger and entrusted her to a foster family. [ 7 ] On November 17, 2009 , Justice Grimard revised the situation. X and her siblings were placed in different foster families in different villages. The father often asked news about the children and many appointments were organized to facilitate the communication between the father and the children. The mother even if she did not seek help, improved her situation. She was more open to receive services from the DYP.

X was maintained in foster family for six months and the Court ordered that aid, counselling and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 8 ] On April 7, 2010 , the father was still detained, but still implicated. The situation of the mother remained the same. The evidence showed that X was sometimes a little slow to complete her work at school. The Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period

of one year with a possible reintegration after eight months. [ 9 ] On April 19, 2011 , the Court noted that the situation of the parents remained the same. X was 9 years old and was living with the same foster family until she started leaving during the night and the foster family was very scared about that. She was moved and she is doing very well in the new one. The DYP was not able to prepare a life plan as requested in the last order because of the lack of foster families.

The Court entrusted X in a foster family for one year, ordered to prepare a life project and asked to consider the possibility to entrust her with the father once released. [ 10 ] On April 3, 2012 , X was 10 years old. The father was in a halfway house in Town A. The situation of the mother did not improve since the beginning of the intervention. X was just integrating a new foster family, so no life plan was drafted yet. The father explained having been the authority figure in the family and, according to him, the mother was not able to take care of the children alone.

He planned to be back in his community, in his house and having back his children with him and also having back his job. He wanted to help his spouse. The foster family is available to take care of X on a long term basis. She is well integrated to this family. Because the situation of the father was too uncertain, the Court entrusted X to the foster family of Ms. D and Mr.

E until she reaches her majority. [ 11 ] On July 26, 2012 , following an emergency hearing, X was moved to another foster family. [ 12 ] On September 25, 2012 , the Court noted that X started displaying behavioural issues and stopped respecting the rules. She missed school regularly and did not always come back home for the night. She neglected her hygiene. The father was still detained and the mother was still struggling with alcohol issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 13 ] On December 11, 2012 , following an emergency hearing, X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 14 ] On February 5, 2013 , as X showed strong opposition behaviours in her previous foster family and at school, the foster family gave up. X was entrusted to her aunt in Town B, but her behaviour did not improve. Since she was in a rehabilitation centre, the situation is not getting better, but the staff was confident to be able to help her. The mother did not contact X, but the father did and the contacts were positive.

The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months and ordered a psychological evaluation. [ 15 ] On October 16, 2013 , the Court noted that X was still living in the rehabilitation centre in Town C. The first months were very difficult because of her behaviour. She also displayed suicidal ideation. After modification in the approach following Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations to the staff, her behaviour improved, but she remained fragile. She was doing much better at school also.

While the rehabilitation centre staff consider X ready to integrate a foster family, X expressed her disagree and requested to stay at the rehabilitation centre. The mother’s situation was still very problematic. The father was working hard to get his life back on track, and he remained an option for the child in the future. The Court insisted on the fact that if X does not feel ready to integrate a foster family, it’s important to respect her pace to avoid another failure in the placement.

Considering her need of stability, a moving from Town C to another community with a new school is “the perfect recipe for another disaster.” For those reasons, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until the end of June 2014. [ 16 ] On June 25, 2014 , X was 12 years old and she integrated in May 2014, the same foster family as her brother in Town D. She was calmer and reacted more adequately. The parents still displayed alcohol and drug issues. They were not implicated in their daughter’s life. The father was detained. X was bounded with her brother and with her grandmother.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until January 23, 2015. [ 17 ] On January 22, 2015 , X was still in the same foster family in Town D and she was doing very well. She agreed to stay there and her mother also. The father disagreed, but did not have another option to offer. The Court entrusted her to a foster family until the end of January 2016 and ordered a life plan. [ 18 ] On April 12, 2016 , the Court revise the decision. The child was still in a foster family and asks to stay there until she reaches her majority.

The father went out from detention and told the DYP worker that he did not wish to be involved in his daughter’s life. The mother still displayed alcohol consumption issues, and did not want to seek help. She did not have an apartment on her own. The Court entrusted the adolescent to Ms. C until she reaches her majority. [ 19 ] On September 6, 2018 , a provisional hearing was held and the adolescent was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. Facts [ 20 ] The adolescent was in the foster family of Ms. C since May 2, 2014. Despite few crises at school, the situation went generally well at Ms.

C who was able to impose a structure to X. [ 21 ] The DYP had to intervene with Ms. C who was not very proactive to facilitate the visits of X in the North. [ 22 ] In July 2017, X’s older brother committed suicide and X went in Town E for the funeral. In June 2018, her uncle also committed suicide. She was offered to go in Town E, but she refused. [ 23 ] In July 2018, she went to the North for a home visit for one week. The visit went well and she was happy to reconnect with her family members. [ 24 ] In August 2018, following a dispute with Ms. C’s daughter, X, expressed suicidal ideation.

The dispute was about the relation between X and Ms. C’s spouse’s son. Ms. C told the DYP she was not aware of this relation but X said that she was totally aware of. [ 25 ] After this event, the DYP worker in the South was made aware that it was the third suicidal attempts in the summer and many other events of self-mutilation also occurred. Ms. C never informed the DYP about that. [ 26 ] X was met at the hospital and she clearly expressed that she does not want to go back under the care of Ms. C, and wants to live

in the North. [ 27 ] Dr. Lajoie who met her at the hospital recommended that she would entrust a neutral living environment. [ 28 ] On August 19, 2018, X integrated an emergency foster family in Town F. On September 5, 2018, she arrived in Town E for the court hearing. The DYP worker informed her about the recommendation to entrust her to a rehabilitation centre. The mother agreed but X reacted vividly and told she would kill herself if she is entrusted there. She asked to go back to her foster family.

After few attempts from the family and the worker, she calmed down and agreed. [ 29 ] The Court granted the recommendations and X was entrusted to the Annex, a closed girl’s unit in Town A. A space became available at the A girls’ unit, so she arrived in the North on September 15, 2018. She adapted well and followed the rules. Regarding her psychological state, the unit’s staff said that she remains fragile and would benefit from a longer stay. [ 30 ] X lived many traumas in her life and was moved from foster family to foster family. During the past years, there were few deaths in her family.

She still struggles with her brother’s death. [ 31 ] Because of her academic difficulties, on June 12, 2017, X was met by a neuropsychologist who recommended that she would be assessed by a psychiatrist to confirm a possible reactive attachment disorder, and also be evaluated by a speech therapist to validate the severity of her delays.

The neuropsychiatrist expressed that she was not able to obtain all the relevant information to prepare her report, “given the confidential aspects of her placement and the laws governing the Direction de la Protection de la Jeunesse.” Analysis [ 32 ] The evidence is obvious that X’s situation remains in danger. She was entrusted to a foster family until she reaches her majority, but sadly the situation did not go well and her foster mother was not able to protect her anymore.

It’s not the first failure of a placement in her young life. [ 33 ] X struggles with many difficulties, and she needs to receive the appropriate services. [ 34 ] The Court agrees with the recommendations and insists on the importance to follow all the recommendations of the neuropsychologist and that, even if she is now in the North and doing so, more distant from the services.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it; [ 38 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the foster family be chosen in the extended family; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the recommendation set out by the neuropsychologist on June 12, 2017, be followed; [ 41 ] Doing so, ORDER that X be assessed by a psychiatrist and by a speech therapist; [ 42 ] ORDERS that all recommendations be followed including any other assessment suggested by the professionals; [ 43 ] Orders that a complete copy of X’s medical and schooling file be provided to the health professional involved in her situation including a copy of the present decision; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the rehabilitation centre staff be informed and maintained aware of all the relevant recommendations set out by the professionals; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the school be informed and maintained aware of all the recommendations set out by the professionals regarding her schooling; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth, the parents and the foster family; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 50 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE until November 1, 2019.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 2, 2018