2012 QCCQ 17889, 2012 QCCQ 17889

Protection de la jeunesse — 127350 2012 QCCQ 17889 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-014263-032 Date: November 2, 2012 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 1999 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by justice Michel Jasmin, on July 20, 2010, whereby the now thirteen year-old child, X , was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until June 30, 2011, followed by foster care placement with aid, counsel and assistance, until the age of majority. [ 2 ] The Court also heard a similar motion regarding the child's younger sister for which a separate judgment is rendered. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 3.1. the child remained in a rehabilitation centre; 3.2. her behaviour and academics have improved; 3.3. notwithstanding that the child continued to exhibit behavioural problems such as being verbally confrontational, shutting down, and anxiety; 3.4. the child terminated her A Therapy at the day program but her therapist recommended ongoing therapy in order to resolve personal issues;

3.5. at the present time, the child expresses not wanting to go to a foster family but to stay in an adolescent rehabilitation centre where she could complete her high school without changing schools; 3.6. the child expresses her desire to return to her parent's care, expressing things could change and that her parents should be given another opportunity of caring for her; 3.7. the parents have not communicated any valid address or telephone number to the Director of Youth Protection ; 3.8. the worker communicates mainly with the parents by e-mail or by leaving a message with the maternal grandfather; 3.9. the parents have not communicated to the Director of Youth Protection any changes in their personal lives nor any steps taken to improve their parenting abilities; 3.10. some of the visits were cancelled by the parents.

The father only attended one (1) visit, in April of 2011; 3.11 visits between the parents and the child were set on a monthly basis, for a period of two (2) hours, under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection ; 3.12. the mother states that she and the father are able to care for the child and sibling; 3.13. the child has had monthly visits with her paternal grandmother, and her younger sibling Y; 3.14. at the present time, the child's situation does not permit an entrustment into a foster family (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until she reaches the age of majority. [ 5 ] The child's parents were not present for the hearings. [ 6 ] In fact, despite the previous Court order that the parents advise the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address or telephone number within 48 hours, the delegate did not have any valid contact information for the parents for many months and was unable to communicate with them, except by email. [ 7 ] At the hearing of November 24, 2011, the case worker testified that the parents advised him by email that they did not intend to be present at the hearing. [ 8 ] At the March 14, 2012 hearing, the case worker testified that he was no longer authorized to communicate with clients by email.

However, he was given a new cellphone number to reach the parents and was able to speak to them. They were made aware of the recommendations and expressed their agreement. Under the circumstances, the Court proceeded in their absence. [ 9 ] The child, assisted by Me Gauthier, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to her continued placement in a rehabilitation centre.

However, she made it very clear that she did not want to remain in a centre until she reaches the age of majority. [ 10 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-6 as evidence: D-1: Court Report written by [social worker 1] dated June 22 nd , 2011; D-2: Observation Report written by [social worker 2] dated May 25 th , 2011 (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-3: A therapy

summary dated March 18 th , 2011 written by [social worker 3] (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-4: Addendum dated November 14 th , 2011 by [SOCIAL WORKER 1]; D-5: Second Addendum dated March 1 st , 2012, by [social worker 1]; D-6: Third Addendum dated June 5 th , 2012, by [social worker 1]. [ 11 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the child has "suffered severe neglect at the hands of her parents" [1] . Although her placement in foster care until the age of majority was ordered by the Court in 2005, her behavioral problems and attachment issues prevented her from remaining in foster care as she required the greater structure of a rehabilitation centre. [ 12 ] As for the parents, there is no evidence of any significant change in their situation. Monthly supervised visits continued to be scheduled with the child.

Out of eleven visits between August 2010 and May 2011, the mother attended five visits, the father only one, in April 2011. The parents' visits continued to be erratic in the following months, essentially following the same pattern. [ 13 ] Despite the inconsistency in the visits, the mother's interactions with the child are described as "appropriate and affectionate" and the child eagerly awaits the visits.

However, there is no indication of any progression towards a greater degree of involvement by the parents in the child's life. [ 14 ] Given that there is no basis upon which to believe that the child could be expected to return to her parents' care, the issue to be determined by the Court is whether the child's continued placement in a rehabilitation centre should be ordered until the reaches the age of majority.

[ 15 ] When the motion dated June 28, 2011 was filed, it was alleged that the child wanted to remain in a rehabilitation centre, did not want to be in foster care, and was still hoping to return to her parents' care.

Her position and feelings in that regard are more fully expressed in the Court Report date June 22, 2011 [2] as are the concerns expressed by the professionals involved with the child: During the previous recording period the subject of transitioning the child to a foster resource was put on hold as the professionals involved in her situation expressed concerns regarding the child's ability to successfully attach to a foster family.

Due to the child's insecure and ambivalent attachment, it was believed that the child, feeling caught in a loyalty bind between any foster parents and her natural parents, would sabotage any placement initiative. During this current period this topic has been revisited by her therapist, the delegate, and her current program manager, and the consensus is that this still holds true. Further, the child has herself stated that she has no interest in moving to a foster home, and would rather remain in a rehabilitation centre setting.

Her main concern at this time is that she be allowed to start and complete her high school studies without having to change schools. [3] [ 16 ] However, the worker writes: This said, the subject of foster care can be re-visited at any time should the child express her desire to transition to foster care. [4] [ 17 ] Significant efforts have been made to help the child come to terms with her history, namely through A Therapy. [ 18 ] As described in the A Therapy

Summary report from the Hospital A: As a component to our therapeutic work, Center A youth and family services and myself accompanied X in a process of learning about the history that led to her placement with them until her majority. This process took place between December 2010 and March 2011 at which time a recommendation for ongoing therapy with an art therapist of their services was made. [5] […] Though part of X, understood that given the history there was no chance that she could ever go back to live with her parents, her desire to do so did however remain.

She protested that "today" we (as in all authority figures) were not giving her mother a chance and that now 12, she could take care of herself and thus her mother/parents would not need to be monitored. There was however evidence that under the surface denial, she could no longer hang on to this unrealistic expectation, hence her anger at losing this unrealistic link that was binding her pain while keeping her connected to them, but also keeping her from moving on.

It will take years to process the emotional impact of such a story. [6] [ 19 ] It was recommended that she continue therapy and be encouraged to pursue creative activities. [ 20 ] However, despite the child's stated desire to remain in a rehabilitation centre, her transition to a new rehabilitation centre more suited to her age proved difficult for a number of reasons including the separation it entailed from her younger sister, and the fact that it coincided with other significant changes, such as the beginning of high school and the end of her A therapy. [ 21 ] Oppositional and aggressive behaviors were reported and the child ran away on February 26.

She was returned to the center by her parents on the following day [7] . [ 22 ] Moreover, the child has repeatedly expressed her "dissatisfaction with her current placement resource." [8] [ 23 ] On the other hand, she is doing well at school, she is becoming more involved in a number of community programs, and her behavior has been improving since March 2012. [ 24 ] At the hearing, despite what was expressed in the earlier reports, the child unequivocally stated that she does not want to remain in a group home until she turns 18. [ 25 ] She also suggested the family of a friend as a possible entrustment resource.

The worker testified that the possibility would be investigated, that "anything is possible" and "was not discounted out of hand". [ 26 ] Given the changes in the child's situation since the motion was filed, namely: • that she no longer claims to want to stay in a rehabilitation centre; • that, on the contrary, she quite desperately wants to live in a family type setting; • that her younger sister is no longer in a rehabilitation centre with her, but is moving to foster care; • that improvements in her behavior are such that a family setting can't be definitively ruled out; • that the possibility of entrusting the child to a particular family is being assessed; • that the child is coming to terms with the fact that she cannot be returned to her parents care and may thus be less likely to be caught in a loyalty bind; • that the child is still only thirteen years-old; the Court concludes that it would be premature and not in the child's interest to order her placement in a rehabilitation until she reaches the age of majority. [ 27 ] The Court concludes that an order for a period of one year would be more appropriate to assess the child's needs as they evolve and to determine whether the foster placement originally considered for the child's long-term plan remains a realistic option.

[ 28 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the identity and coordinates of the rehabilitation centre remain confidential to the parents; [ 33 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child continue to receive counselling as recommended further to the end of her A therapy [ 34 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child has suggested the family of C as a possible entrustment resource; [ 35 ] TAKES JUDUCIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection's undertaking to assess the resource and explore other possible placement options; [ 36 ] MAINTAINS all other compatible measures ordered by Justice Michel Jasmin on July 20, 2010; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois / AN4195 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Michèle Gauthier / AG7089 Attorney for the child Hearing dates: November 24, 2011, March 14 and June 13, 2012. TD/vl