2018 QCCQ 20510, 2018 QCCQ 20510

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811611 2018 QCCQ 20510 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001897-153 DATE: November 21, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 4, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ Rectified JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED DECISION : The text of the original decision has been corrected on May 10, 2019, and the description of the corrections is at the end of this version.

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 November 2, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2018, with a reintegration in a foster family after the end of the school year if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the youth’s situation has improved and recommends that she be entrusted to a foster family until November 30, 2019. [ 3 ] The Court is also seized with the revision of the situation of her brother Y who is now 13 years old. Position of the parties [ 4 ] Mr. B is present and represented by Me Léonard.

He recognizes that the security and development of the youth are still in danger and he agrees with the measures or as X wishes. [ 5 ] The youth is absent on November 20, but present on November 21. She is represented by Me Neptune. She admits most of the allegations and she wishes to stay at the Group Home in Town A, not in a foster home.

Historical situation [ 6 ] On March 3, 2015 , an emergency hearing was held and the Court entrusted X to the foster family of C and D (aunt and uncle). [ 7 ] On March 19, 2015 , the Court was seized with another emergency hearing and entrusted X and her brother to a foster family. [ 8 ] On May 7, 2015 , the Court heard the application for protection. X was 12 years old. The mother passed away in January 2011. After the death of the mother, the grandmother took care of her until September 2014, when she also passed away.

After X and her brother were moved from one family member to another one, but no one was reliable enough. Finally, they went to live with an aunt, Ms. E, in Town B. The aunt was hesitant about a long-term involvement with the children, but she accepted. Mr. B hoped to have a new house soon and to be able to have the children back with him. The children developed some attachment problem. The Court declares that the security and development of the child are in danger and entrusted her to a foster family until the end of January 2016. [ 9 ] On December 9, 2015 , the Court revised the decision.

After being with a foster family in Town B, who decided not to

continue, the children were entrusted with Ms. F, an aunt who also gave up. They were entrusted to a cousin for two nights, but it became necessary to separate X and Y. X was entrusted to a foster family in Town C and Y went back with F, in another community. Mr. B reduced his alcohol consumption, but always accepted consumers in his place. After few behavioural issues and threats and after being entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, X is doing better.

The Court entrusted her to a foster family until August 17, 2016. [ 10 ] On January 13, 2016 , the situation of X was getting worse and the Court was seized with an emergency measure. As she was nowhere to be found, the Court order a warrant under

section 35.2 YPA. [ 11 ] On January 19, 2016 , X had been found and brought to the Group Home but she ran away. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre. [ 12 ] On March 17, 2016 , the Court noted that it had been necessary to entrusted X to a Group Home because since December 2015, she ran away many times, she displayed suicidal ideation and self-mutilation. During her running away, Mr. B was aware that the DYP was looking for her, but he helped her to hide from the workers.

The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until August 17, 2016. [ 13 ] On July 20, 2016 , X underwent to a psychological assessment. Because she had a very aggressive behaviour, the child psychiatrist who follows her since the death of her mother (January 2011), asked to investigate for a potential ADHD and FASD. The rehabilitation centre also noted that the schooling was very difficult even if it’s offered in the centre. The psychologist indicated that her face let think that she could suffer from a FASD and Mr.

B, who was also met, reminds that the mother was drinking a lot during the pregnancy and after the birth. X started walking when she was between 2 and 3 years old and she started speaking when she was between 4 and 5 years old. The psychologist concluded that she is in the mild range of intellectual disability and cognitive potential with signs of ADHD for which she does not have medication. He highly recommended a neuropsychological assessment in conjunction with a referral to Dr.

Kent Saylor, pediatric specialist in FASD at Montreal Children’s hospital. [ 14 ] On August 17, 2016 , the situation of X was revised. She was at the rehabilitation centre since January 2016. Her behaviour improves a lot, but she still needs rehabilitation services. Mr. B continued to reduce his alcohol consumption and had a stable job. He still needs to work to improve his parental skills. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until [...], 2017. [ 15 ] On March 3, 2017 , the Court noted a recent improvement in her behaviour. The evidence also showed that X had a strong character.

During the month of January 2017, she ran away and stayed at her aunt’s place, Ms. D. Mr. B was still not able yet to have her back at home. The Court entrusted her to her aunt, D until January 28, 2018. [ 16 ] In July 2017 , as X was entrusted to her aunt with her brother, the DYP was informed that the aunt had alcohol consumption issues. X ran away for one week in July 2017. On August 1, 2017, she was found and entrusted to a foster family in Town B, but she did not respect the rules.

Between August 1, 2017, and September 20, 2017, she was entrusted to three different foster families. [ 17 ] On September 20, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre and recommended that she would be entrusted in the Group Home of Town C. She ran away two hours after her arrival. She was suspected of stealing some food at the grocery store. She was found by the police only on November 11, 2017, while she was intoxicated.

As she revealed being raped, she was brought to the nursing, but ran away upon her arrival at the nursing. [ 18 ] On November 16, 2017 , she was found and entrusted to the Group Home in Town A. The Court was seized with the application for revision, entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until the end of November 2018, and authorized the reintegration in a foster family in June 2018, if the situation allows it. Facts [ 19 ] Since the last order, X is still at the Group Home in Town A. Mr. B came to see her a few times. Since the last visit of Mr.

B, the Group Home staff notes that X is doing better and improve her behaviour after each visit from Mr. B. [ 20 ] In March 2018, she came in Town C for a home visit. She stayed at her aunt’s place, and everything went very well. In May, she went for a weekend and stayed at another aunt’s place and it also went very well. During the summer she came at the same aunt’s place and her behaviour was perfect. [ 21 ] Considering the improvement, the DYP looked for a foster family. One was found in Town C, and X had the opportunity to come in Town C in this foster family for a weekend.

Even if she would prefer to stay in Town A, this visit went well. [ 22 ] According to the DYP, X is still fragile and needs a lot of structure. X and Ms. G, the foster family, agree to start a progressive integration for a long-term placement. [ 23 ] The hearing started on November 20, and finish on November 21. The first day, X did not wait for the beginning of the hearing and left the court house. She seems to be confused about the place she would like to stay. She said something to the DYP worker and something different to her lawyer. She admitted been scared that the foster family gave up after a few weeks.

She said feeling good in Town A. She goes to school and she works at the DYP office. Everything is going very well in the foster family of Ms. G, but she does not want to stay there. [ 24 ] The DYP worker thinks that the village of Town C reminds her bad memories. For this reason, the DYP looked for foster families in other villages. She knows that the two children would like to stay in Town A, but there is no foster family available in Town A.

The children are informed about this lack of foster families. [ 25 ] According to the DYP, even if X could have some bad behaviour sometimes, it’s not frequent and it does not justify rehabilitation service anymore. The foster family is ready to receive X in Town C and is able to impose structure and discipline. [ 26 ] The children are very close together and it’s possible that they would like to be entrusted in the same foster family. It’s difficult

to know exactly because they change their mind often. It’s one of the reasons why the DYP asks the Court to order a placement in a foster family, even if X expresses at the hearing the desire to stay at the Group Home. [ 27 ] Mr. B wants that the desire of his children be respected. He understands they prefer to stay in Town A. According to him, the village of Town C is associated with bad memories. [ 28 ] The Court asked questions about the health follow-up done after X’s psychological assessment.

As the worker was new in the file and was not aware, the Court suspended the hearing and continues the day after to let the worker make some verification. [ 29 ] During this adjournment, the worker read the psychological report, called the Group Home staff and met with the children. [ 30 ] She confirms that X met with the child psychiatrist few times. X does not have any medication for ADHD, but she does not know if it had been evaluated or not.

It’s the same thing for the FASD, nothing in the file shows that it was evaluated by a neuropsychiatrist as it was highly recommended in 2016. [ 31 ] She also confirms that the children never received personal follow-up for the attachment problem ever noted by the Court. [ 32 ] During the adjournment, the children told the DYP worker that they would like to be in the same foster family and in another village than Town C.

Analysis [ 33 ] The many changes of mind from X reveal that she is totally torn and unable to project herself in the future. [ 34 ] The Court is very disappointed that the many traumas she lived in her young life never been addressed, and year after year, as she did not receive the services she deserved, the situation is still unresolved and her difficulties are deeper. [ 35 ] For sure her behaviour is getting better after being in a rehabilitation centre as she was in a well-structured environment. But what kind of answer did she receive to her emotive needs?

In 2015, the Court already noted an attachment problem. Today, as we can see, the situation is still the same: X is hesitant to attach herself to Ms. G because she is scared Ms. G could also give up as the previous foster families. [ 36 ] Considering the anxiety generated by the integration in a foster family, and the desire to live in Town A, the Court will maintain X at the Group Home with a reintegration in a foster family if possible.

This will give time to the DYP and to X, to share their point of view and for X to be reassured in this transition. [ 37 ] The evaluation recommended by the psychologist will have to be done in a timely manner.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that it will be the Group Home of Town A; [ 42 ] ORDERS that Y and X be reintegrated together in the same foster family.

If it’s not possible, in different foster families according to the wishes of each youth; [ 43 ] ORDERS very frequent contacts between Y and X; Considering that the medical services were not provided as it was recommended by the professional: [ 44 ] ORDERS that a neuro-psychological assessment for X be performed to determine if she suffers from FASD and that all the recommendations be followed; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the neuropsychologist could have access to the psychological evaluation made in 2016, and to an entire copy of her medical and schooling file; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the neuro-psychological assessment and the conclusions be explained to X, Mr.

B, the Group Home staff and the foster family if it is relevant to help them to intervene with her; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment be performed regarding attachment or any other pathology and that the recommendations be followed and explained to the youth and her foster family; [ 48 ] ORDERS that this evaluations be done in a delay of two months; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the youth and the interested party take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 50 ] ORDERS that Mr. B report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation;

[ 51 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the interested party remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and Mr. B be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the frequency, modalities and degree of supervision; [ 54 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, to Mr.

B and the foster family; [ 55 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 57 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 58 ] THE WHOLE until April 19, 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 Marianne Léonard, attorney for the interested party Dates of hearing: November 20 and 21, 2018 Corrections made: • On the first page, ‘Biological father’ has been replaced by Interested party ; • In the paragraph 4, ‘the father’ has been replaced by Mr. B ; • In the paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 27, 50, 53 and 54 ‘the father’ has been replaced by Mr. B; • In the paragraphs 19 and 46, ‘her father’ has been replaced by Mr.

B ; • At the end, ‘biological father’ has been replaced by interested party.