2014 QCCQ 12529, 2014 QCCQ 12529

Protection de la jeunesse — 141616 2014 QCCQ 12529 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001301-107 DATE: April 7, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [TOWN A], district A (Quebec) […] Applicant A , residing and domiciled in [TOWN A], district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in [TOWN A], district A (Quebec) […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 asks the Court to review the decision rendered by Judge Lucille Chabot on June 1 st , 2011 pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] On June 1 st , 2011, Judge Chabot orders that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, namely Mrs C and Mr D until he reaches his majority. [ 3 ] The applicant asks the Court to review Judge Chabot decision because Mrs C and Mr D have decided not to foster the youth anymore because of his behavioural problems. The applicant asks the Court to entrust the youth in a reception center for a period of six months with a reintegration in a foster care within three months if the situation allows it. [ 4 ] The youth is absent but is represented by a lawyer.

His lawyer admits most of the allegations of the motion. She admits that the youth displays behavioural problems such as not respecting the authority (except at the group home) and being verbally aggressive when upset (except at the group home). The youth's lawyer agrees with the Director of Youth Protection recommendations. [ 5 ] This hearing starts on February 26, and is continued on February 27. [ 6 ] On February 26, the mother is present but not represented by a lawyer.

The mother doesn't wish to be represented even if the Court explains to her that she has the right to be represented or assisted by a lawyer. [ 7 ] On February 27, the mother is absent. She has waited all day long but left because she was tired of waiting. [ 8 ] The father is absent. According to the applicant the father is detained in a prison cell in [TOWN B] because of a situation of conjugal violence that has occurred last week. On February 14, the applicant goes to the parents' home to present them the motion but there's nobody at home. Finally she finds the mother at the mall in [TOWN C].

She discusses with her about the motion. The father is not with her. [ 9 ] On February 18, the police intervenes at the parents' place. The mother tells the applicant that the father is in prison, charged with attempted murder and waits for his bail hearing. [ 10 ] On January 20, 2014 the applicant files a motion for provisional compulsory foster care and a hearing is held. Judge Ouimette orders the provisional foster care of the youth in a rehabilitation center in [TOWN A] for a maximum period of thirty days. The hearing for the motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act is fixed on January 30. Both mother and father are present. [ 11 ] On January 30, the motion is crossed out. All the parties are absent. A new presentation notice fixing the hearing on February 26, is served to the mother. The father was never served because of the particular above-mentioned situation.

[ 12 ] The attorney for the applicant asks the Court to continue this hearing on February 27. The postponment is granted. [ 13 ] On February 27, the applicant explains to the Court that she has reached the father on the phone. He had a copy of the motion and she explained and translated to him the motion, the revision report and the Director of Youth Protection recommendations. He told her that he agreed with the recommendations. [ 14 ] Considering the evidence the Court allows the parties to proceed in the absence of both parents. [ 15 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence.

The facts [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection receives a signalement pertaining to the situation of the youth who is reported in having difficulties functioning in his foster home.

During the Christmas holidays the youth goes home to spend Christmas with his family. [ 17 ] On December 30, 2013 the emergency worker receives a call from the foster parents saying that the youth has not been seen for one whole day and that he is nowhere to be seen. [ 18 ] The foster parents report that the youth displays negative behavioural such as; not following rules, disrespecting the foster parents, not attending school and wishes to play with his XBOX constantly and gets upset when he is asked to stop playing. [ 19 ] The foster parents refuse to continue fostering the youth since he is not following their rules. [ 20 ] The youth is placed at his aunt's place for temporary. [ 21 ] On January 3, the youth's paternal aunt and aunt's husband are both intoxicated in the presence of the youth.

The emergency workers remove the youth from there. The youth refuses to go back to his foster parents. [ 22 ] From January 3 to January 8, 2014 the youth is placed at the Youth Healing Services. [ 23 ] Since January 2013, the youth is reported having difficulties functioning in his foster family. The Youth Protection has to remove the youth from the foster parents care for serious reasons. They were in crisis with marital problems and could no longer continue in keeping the youth.

However the main reason for not keeping the youth with them was his behavioural problems. [ 24 ] The youth went in seven different foster homes.

During each foster home placement he seems to be fine until a few weeks after he would start displaying negative behaviour. [ 25 ] On January 20, 2014 Judge Ouimette orders the provisional foster care of the youth in a rehabilitation center in [TOWN A] for a maximum period of thirty days. [ 26 ] Since the last Court hearing the Youth Protection takes several steps concerning the youth's situation: • An appointment is scheduled for the youth to be assessed by a psychologist on March 13, 2014; • A childcare provided support for the youth to receive tutoring for his academics subjects; • The youth was sent on a walking journey with the Group A clients.

That was not successful and the youth was sent home early because of his negative behaviour. [ 27 ] The youth is at the Group A. After about three weeks he displays negative behaviour. He is sent back home from school because he is not showing any interest in doing his work in class. [ 28 ] On January 23, 2014 while the youth is in a meeting with the case worker he declares that he is comfortable staying at the Group A. He seems to understand the reason of his placement. [ 29 ] During the meeting the youth opens up about what he has encountered during his foster placement with Mrs C and Mr D.

According to him he has been exposed to violence and dramatic events during his stay at their place. [ 30 ] On January 28, 2014 the case worker meets with the parents. Parents request services for themselves. An appointment is made for them on January 30 for the father to see a counsellor to deal with his sudden loss of his brother. The mother discloses personal issues and admits some her mistakes from the past. The father admits that he buys whatever the youth requests. [ 31 ] On January 30, the father has been drinking beer with his peers.

He misses his appointment he has requested with the counsellor. [ 32 ] At the beginning of the evaluation the youth tells his case worker that a particular childcare worker is interested to foster him. She is a single mother and has raised her son alone. Also she works at the Group A. When the case worker meets the woman he learns from her that she is already aware about the youth's situation and his long term placement. On February 14, the woman calls the case worker to tell her that she has decided to take the youth as a foster child. [ 33 ] The evidence reveals that the youth needs stability.

He has already stayed in seven different foster homes. The evidence reveals also that he still displays behavioural problems. The youth cannot be fostered anymore by Mrs C and Mr D the foster parents designated by the Court.

[ 34 ] The childcare worker who works at the Group A is still interested in taking the youth with her in order to foster him. The youth also asks to be foster by her. According to the evidence it seems that it is for now the best plan found for him. [ 35 ] The evidence reveals also that there is no possibility to reintegrate the youth with his parents. They still face personal issues and don't seek any help. They still consume alcohol on a regular basis.

Since they reside in [TOWN C] they acknowledge their alcohol consumption is getting worst. [ 36 ] Considering the evidence including the admissions made by the parties the Court concludes that the youth's situation must be reviewed and that the applicant's recommendations are reasonable, appropriate and likely to put an end to the situation in which the security or the development of the youth is in danger.

For these reasons the Court: [ 37 ] Grants the motion; [ 38 ] Reviews the decision rendered on June 30, 2011; [ 39 ] Declares that the security or development of X, born on […], 2001 is still in danger; [ 40 ] Entrusts the youth in a reception center for a period of six months with a reintegration in a foster care during the last three months if the situation allows it; [ 41 ] Orders that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the parents, the youth and the foster family for a period of six months; [ 42 ] Orders that the contacts between the youth and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the length; [ 43 ] Transfers to the Director of Youth Protection the exercise of attributes of parental authority namely all documents pertaining to social activities, school, sports, medical care, passport, obtaining a birth certificate, a medical card and all other documents referring to his status as a member of the […] Nation; [ 44 ] Orders any police officer to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders; [ 45 ] Entrusts the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Myriam Gaudreault, attorney for the children Date of hearing: February 26 and 27, 2014