2019 QCCQ 15285, 2019 QCCQ 15285

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910417 2019 QCCQ 15285 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002321-195 DATE: August 5, 2019 (written judgment rendered on November 5, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 declare that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003, are endangered under

section 38 (c) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The DYP recommends that the youth be entrusted to a foster family until August 31, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. [ 4 ] Considering that the mother was duly served with the application; that the steps were made to make her travelling from City A to City B; that she decided not to come, and in the interest of the adolescent, the Court reduces the delay of presentation and authorizes to proceed in her absence. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations. He understands that the foster family means the grandmother. [ 6 ] X, who is 15 years old, is present and represented by Me Boudreau. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the recommendations. History of the situation [ 7 ] The situation of the adolescent is well known as it was already declared endangered in a previous file. [ 8 ] On October 24, 2007 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. She was almost 3 and a half years old. The parents had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, and conjugal violence.

X and her siblings were victims of physical abuse from the part of both parents. The children were also neglected on the aspect of their hygiene. The parents finally got separated. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [2] . The Court entrusted the child to her mother under very strict conditions, including a psychological evaluation for both parents, the whole for a period of one year. [ 9 ] On December 17, 2009 , the Court rendered a provisional order and entrusted the child to a foster home. [ 10 ] On February 2, 2010 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court.

The mother admitted the physical abuses on X. She explained that she was forced to adopt her because of family pressure, but never wanted her, and she did not want her anymore. The Court declared the security and development endangered [3] , entrusted X to a foster family for a period of six months, ordered that a psychological evaluation of X be performed, and a life plan be prepared.

[ 11 ] On August 17, 2010 , the Court reviewed the situation. The evidence revealed that the mother sabotaged the first placement. X had to be transferred to another foster family. She was entrusted to her cousin, where she was doing well. The parents expressed the desire to have X back under their care and to address their issues. The Court maintained X in the same foster home for a period of one year to evaluate the parents’ motivation. [ 12 ] On July 7, 2011 , on a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted the child to her mother. In September , the status quo was maintained on provisional hearing.

In October , the provisional measures were revised and the child was entrusted to a foster family. [ 13 ] On November 24, 2011 , the Court ratified a draft agreement. The mother admitted having been physically abusive towards X. The Court entrusted the child to a foster home for a period of one year with a progressive reintegration with the parents if the situation allowed it. [ 14 ] On November 13, 2012 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained in a foster family. [ 15 ] On January 22, 2013 , the evidence showed that X was doing well in a foster family.

The reintegration was not possible as the mother was frequently outside of the community for medical reason. The situation of the father remained the same. The child was maintained in a foster family for six months with a progressive reintegration with the mother if the situation allowed it. [ 16 ] On July 30, 2013 , as the mother was detained, the hearing was postponed and the child was maintained in a foster family. [ 17 ] On October 16, 2013 , the evidence showed that the child was reintegrated under her mother’s care.

The beginning went well, but after a few weeks, the mother became frequently overwhelmed and she could be verbally abusive when she was drunk. In July 2012, an event of violence occurred and the mother was physically abusive towards the children. The mother was arrested and released under conditions. X was entrusted to Ms. C and she was doing well until her behaviour and the one of her brothers became an issue. Ms. C gave up in September 2012.

The Court maintained X in a foster family for a period of six months and ordered that a life plan be prepared. [ 18 ] On April 24, 2014 , the evidence revealed that the mother’s situation remained the same as she still struggled with important alcohol consumption issues. The father suffered a brain injury and easily loses his temper. The life plan was not done yet, so the Court maintained the child in a foster family for another six months. [ 19 ] On October 15, 2014 , the situation of the parents remained the same. X was entrusted to a family, she was doing well and the maximum period of placement was reached.

The Court entrusted X to Ms. D until she reaches her majority. [ 20 ] On May 11, 2017 , the evidence revealed that the mother had been able to improve her situation. She reduced her alcohol consumption and received help. She was also able to resume the care of one of her children. The contacts between X and her mother were increased, and since January 2017, she lives at her mother’s place. She was doing well and she went to school regularly. The foster mother, who is also X’s aunt, remained present. The Court entrusted the child to her mother until the end of May 2018.

Facts [ 21 ] On May 31, 2018, the parties signed a post-order agreement and X remained under her mother’s care. [ 22 ] On August 14, 2018, because of X’s behavioural issues, the parties signed another post-order agreement and she was entrusted to a Group Home.

This was renewed in February 2019, and it was agreed that a reintegration would start at the mother as soon as the situation would allow for it. [ 23 ] X was able to improve her behaviour and she reintegrated her mother’s domicile on April 29, 2019, as planned. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, the mother started to consume alcohol again and to be verbally abusive again towards X. Since May 7, 2019, X was sleeping at her maternal grandmother’s house. [ 25 ] The mother told the DYP worker that X did not listen to the rules at home, but according to the grandmother, X was doing very well at her place regarding this aspect.

Now the main issue for X is to cope with her emotions. She started to self-mutilate and this raises concerns. Analysis [ 26 ] X had a very difficult childhood. She was the first victim of physical abuse by her parents, she witnessed a lot of alcohol and drug consumption, as well as violence. She was also rejected, as the mother clearly expressed numerous times that she did not want to have her. She was transferred from foster family to foster family. After finally being stable in a caring environment, her mother improved her situation and X was entrusted back to her.

She hoped that the situation would be maintained, but another deception occurred when the situation of the mother deteriorated again. [ 27 ] Today, X has the chance to live with her grandmother, but the impacts of her difficult childhood are starting to be a challenge. She has to be supported in this difficult period. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born [...], 2003, are endangered according to paragraphs (b) (1) iii. and (

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to her maternal grandmother as a foster family, if she is accredited as such;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother and the youth take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with Director of Youth Protection; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother and the youth report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother or any adult refrain from all violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her personal issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, duration, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until August 5, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Caroline Daniel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 5, 2019