2013 QCCQ 11985, 2013 QCCQ 11985

Protection de la jeunesse — 134061 2013 QCCQ 11985 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001357-117 DATE: February 22, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANT 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in Town A, […] Child -and- A, hospitalized at the [Hospital A], […] Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A, […] Father -and- THE PUBLIC CURATOR, 600, René-Lévesque boulevard West, 10 th floor, office […] in Town A (Quebec) […] -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DE LA JEUNESSE, […] in Town A (Quebec) […] Interested parties ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered on December 13, 2011, by Grimard J., in the case of X, born on […], 2003. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child and the father are present and each represented by their lawyer.

Following an accident, the mother is severely disabled. She suffered brain damage and is under Public Curatorship. The Public Curator was duly notified of the present procedures and decided not to be present. THE FACTS [ 3 ] At the outset of the hearing, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the placement of Xin a rehabilitation center for a period of one year.

The father and the child both disagree with the Director's recommendation and request that X be entrusted to her uncle. [ 4 ] The Court considers that following the documentary evidence and the testimonies heard, there is preponderant evidence of the following facts. [ 5 ] On December 13, 2011, Grimard J. ratified a draft agreement by which the parties admitted that the security and development of X remained in endangered and agreed that she be entrusted to her aunt C in order to clarify an adoption project. [ 6 ] Since the last judgment, the parents' situation remains unchanged.

As previously mentioned, the mother is disabled and is living at the A Center in Town A and is under Public Curatorship. The father recognizes that he cannot care for her daughter because of his addiction to alcohol and drugs. However, the bond between the father and the child seems solid and comforting for X. The father is

saddened by his daughter's situation and considers that she has suffered many losses in the past years. According to him, to uproot his daughter from the community and her loves ones in order to send her in a rehabilitation center would do her more harm than good. [ 7 ] The child's entrustment to her aunt C failed miserably. The aunt left the community on many occasions without the child. As a result, the child was then entrusted to seven different foster families. More troublesome is the fact that on two occasions, Mrs.

B left the community without advising the Director of Youth Protection thus leaving X on her own, without a home. Upon the aunt's return, the child developed resistance to structure and the aunt became overwhelmed with the child's behaviour, which had always been difficult. Moreover, X reported that her aunt was drunk and that she had hit her. As a result, X had to be removed from her care. [ 8 ] The child was placed in another foster family and continued to show resistance to structure. She smoked cigarettes and would stay out late or not come back home at all.

In last resort, the Director of Youth Protection entrusted X to her uncle pending the hearing of the motion for revision. The child's behaviour has somewhat improved in the past weeks, as she is able to respect a curfew. However, her attendance at school is a cause for concern. She leaves school without authorization. The uncle collaborates with the D.Y.P. by informing the workers when X's whereabouts become problematic. [ 9 ] During the applicant's testimony, the Court also learned that a psychological assessment made by Dr.

Joseph Beltempo highlighted the fact that X showed signs of poor attachment and oppositional behaviour. In order to deal with X's fragility due to her past and to maximize her integration at her aunt's, the psychologist recommended a daily follow-up with the foster family. The applicant admits that no such follow-up was done by the previous Youth Protection worker. [ 10 ] As for her, she has been the caseworker since the beginning of December 2012 and was absent for approximately a month due to her vacation.

She refuses to acknowledge any failings on the part of the Director of Youth Protection and insists that the child shows significant behaviour problems, which require the structure of a specialized foster home in Town A. ANALYSIS [ 11 ] The child's situation was first entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection because she was a victim of parental neglect with overtime impaired her capacity to bond. The Director of Youth Protection knew this as it had a psychological assessment in hand recommending close monitoring in order to increase the child's chances of happiness with her aunt.

Not only did the Director chose to disregard the recommendation in regard to a daily follow-up with the foster family, he failed to provide minimal supervision. The Director did not know that X was left without a home as it was people from the community who called the D.Y.P. to inform the workers of the child's situation. There is a huge difference between a daily follow-up with a foster family and learning from others that the child is somewhat homeless.

The Court is of the opinion that the Director of Youth Protection breached the child's right by not offering minimal supervision and support to the foster family. It is no wonder that X continues to show resistance to structure after being left with none at all. [ 12 ] The evidence does reveal that X shows behavioural problems. However, the Court must take into account that she has suffered many losses for her young age.

Moreover, the evidence also shows that X is presently showing minimal compliance to the rules set out by her uncle. [ 13 ] The Court believes that it is premature to remove the child from her community and from her extended family. The Director of Youth Protection must first offer X the services that she has the right to receive. This entails a close follow-up with the foster family, with X as well as with school personnel.

The Court will order an unusually short period of placement in a foster family in order to monitor the services rendered by the Director as well as X's behaviour. [ 14 ] The Director must comply with the Court order by providing the necessary services to X and her foster family.

It would be shameful and illegal not to comply once more with the Court's conclusion pertaining to aid, counsel and assistance. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS partially the petition; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born […], 2003, are still endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until April 30, 2013; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the D.Y.P.'s intention to entrust the child to her uncle D as a foster family; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child, her family and foster family until April 30, 2013; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to terms and frequency; [ 22 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune Legal Aid Lawyer for the child M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: February 5, 2013