2014 QCCQ 8383, 2014 QCCQ 8383

Protection de la jeunesse — 14962 2014 QCCQ 8383 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] NO.: 640-41-001635-132 DATE: February 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...] 1997.

CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker (team leader), duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 91 of the Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking the Court to declare the security and development of X, who will turn 17 years old next […], endangered due to her behavioural disturbances

section 38

f) and due to a risk of being neglected

section 38 b) [1] . [ 2 ] For the hearing X is present and represented by Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault. Mtre. Clara Egervari acts on behalf of the mother who is present by phone for the whole hearing, the mother being currently in a treatment centre. Mtre Robert-André Adam represents the applicant. The father received copy of the proceedings and waived the delay of service on January 23, 2014. He is not present nor represented in Court. The applicant was informed that he did not intend to be present in Court. [ 3 ] All the parties agree that the Court proceeds without the presence of Mr.

B. [ 4 ] On March 2, 2013, an agreement on voluntary measures was signed. The admitted facts were: - Youth is at risk to herself; - Youth abuses drugs (marijuana); - Mother cannot exert control over her daughter (neglected); - Youth needs close supervision by the Doctor's recommendation. [ 5 ] The measures agreed upon were that X be entrusted to a reception centre and that doctor's recommendations be enforced. [ 6 ] The Court has to remind to the Director of Youth Protection that such agreement on voluntary measures must be signed by both parents.

From the testimony given by Mrs. [Social Worker 1], who reached the father a few hours before the Court hearing to remind him that he could be present, we know that Mr. B lives in Town A. He is not very involved in his child's life. However, there is a gap in the evidence. Such a decision to sign a voluntary measure with only one of the parents, should be taken by the Director of Youth Protection under

section 52.1 (2) of the Youth Protection Act [2] that states: 52.1. […] The director may also decide to reach such an agreement with only one of the parents where the other parent is unable to express his will or cannot be found despite serious efforts to locate him, or where the latter, having not, in fact, assumed responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of the child, abstains from becoming involved owing to indifference. Such a decision may only be taken by the director personally, and must be in writing and give reasons.

[ 7 ] No such evidence was tendered at the hearing.

Maybe this written decision of the Director of Youth Protection is contained in the child's social file, but the Court was not provided with such written decision of the Director. [ 8 ] When X was placed in a reception centre, she displayed behavioural disturbances such as: - Hearing voices; - Talking to herself; - Displaying aggressive behaviours. [ 9 ] Since 2011, X has been hospitalized for the following periods: - From November 23, 2011 to January 17, 2012 at the A Hospital; - From August 22, 2012 to October 12, 2012 at the A Hospital; - From December 12, 2012 to Febuary 6, 2013 at the A Hospital; - From May 29, 2013 to June 20, 2013 at the A Hospital; - From July 18, 2013 to November 6, 2013 at the A Hospital; - From November 6, 2013 to January 2014 at the B Hospital. [ 10 ] At times, during her hospitalization at the A Hospital she was transferred to B Hospital. [ 11 ] Upon her last admission to this hospital, the professionals observed that she displayed active and frequent auditory hallucinations and her thought content was disorganized.

She needed constant supervision and also support for daily activities and hygiene care. [ 12 ] X was diagnosed with schizophrenia and it has been hard to find a medication to improve her situation. [ 13 ] She also presents intellectual limitations and behavioural disturbances. Her use of solvents partly created this situation. So at times, she becomes irritable and has a very low tolerance for frustration. [ 14 ] The B Hospital introduced new medications that improved significantly her condition.

At the beginning of December, the professional team of B hospital came to the conclusion that it was now possible to have X living in her community if she was provided with a structured and supervised environment. [ 15 ] As some of the medications could have negative side effects, a close supervision for their administration is necessary. [ 16 ] The Court had the opportunity to hear the psychiatrist, Dr. Belair, from B Hospital. A report was also filed. The Court also heard the testimony of the head doctor of Town A Clinic, Dre. Rosy Khurana. Dre.

Khurana, with many other people or company involved, built up a protocol for the administration of the medication of X. [ 17 ] All professionals involved in this file worked very hard and in collaboration to find solutions for X to be able to live in her community with the appropriate services to meet her special needs. [ 18 ] The mother is currently in a treatment centre. All the professionals encouraged her to finish this treatment before coming back to Town A .

The mother is really involved in her daughter's life and very collaborative with social workers and the medical teams here in Town A and in Town B. [ 19 ] All the parties agree that the security and development of X are endangered pursuant to paragraph b) and

f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act and they also agree on the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 20 ] The Court is of the opinion that the plan put forward by the Director of Youth Protection is complete and likely to protect X if strictly followed. The Court is informed that there will be a one-on-one educator working with X and that there are persons namely identified as the one who will give the medication to X. It is important that X has her blood tested every week as recommended by the B Hospital and Dre. Khurana. [ 21 ] The file of X is an unusual one.

The Court is impressed with the collaboration, the creativity, the involvement of all the professionals acting in X's situation to create an individual program that will meet her special needs. [ 22 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...] 1997, are endangered pursuant to paragraph b) and

f) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 25 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a reception centre for a period of 6 months with the reintegration with the mother if the situation allows to do so; [ 26 ] ORDERS that any health and social services needed be provided to the teenager for a period of one year, including a

psychiatric follow-up; [ 27 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the teenager and her mother for the same period; [ 28 ] ORDERS that a social follow-up be available for the father if he expressly requests such services; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES all the professionals working in X's file to share any relevant information with the Director of Youth Protection as for the evolution of their respective clients; [ 30 ] PROHIBITS X from any alcohol or drugs consumption except in accordance with a valid medical prescription; [ 31 ] ORDERS that supervised visits with the mother and her siblings be organized but supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 32 ] ORDERS that any access rights by the father with X be preauthorized by the Director of Youth Protection and supervised as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 33 ] TAKES NOTICE that there will be a one-on-one educator working with X during her placement in a reception centre; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the reception centre and the Director of Youth Protection take all necessary measures to avoid any runaway from the reception centre; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother received an after care program with a NNADAP worker and attend regularly AA meetings; [ 36 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS X's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Robert-André Adam Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault Counsel for the child Mtre. Clara Lafrance-Egervari Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: January 30, 2014