2022 QCCQ 13876, 2022 QCCQ 13876

Protection de la jeunesse — 224767 2022 QCCQ 13876 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-040122-228 DATE: July 27, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2010 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child’s security or development is endangered due to a situation of psychological ill treatment, medical neglect, physical abuse and serious behavioural disturbances. [ 2 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months and that diverse support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The parents agree with the Director’s plan but they would like to have the child return to their home as soon as possible.

The mother believes that a two to four month period of placement could be sufficient. [ 4 ] The child also agrees with the Director’s recommendations, reporting that work is needed on both sides to ameliorate the family dynamics. Questions in litigation [ 5 ] Did the Director present preponderant evidence with regards to the alleged grounds of compromission? [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting the child’s rights?

Context and analysis [ 7 ] All parties agreed that the child’s previous declarations, mentioned in the documentary evidence, be considered as if the child had testified at the hearing. The parties also stated that they did not intend to cross-examine the child. [ 8 ] The child identifies as gender neutral and prefers to be referred as “X”. The child perceives their parents as not respecting this decision.

The child reported that the parents mentioned that they would send the child to a conversion camp. [ 9 ] Contrary to the child’s perception, the parents report that they are supportive of the child’s identity and respect them. [ 10 ] On at least three occasions, the child made suicide attempts. The child also expressed suicidal ideations on a daily basis.

Despite this, the parents have not sought medical attention for the child. They mentioned not being concerned about the situation. [ 11 ] The child reported having auditory hallucinations on a regular basis.

The voices are mentioning that the child is worthless and that they should harm or kill themselves. [ 12 ] Until the Director’s intervention, the child did not have a pediatrician or family doctor. [ 13 ] The child expressed not feeling loved by the parents, mentioning that they were racist and homophobic. [ 14 ] The child reported that on one occasion, the mother put her hands around the child’s neck and attempted to choke them. This information is denied by the mother.

During the April 21, 2022 social service consult at the University Health Centre A, the child mentioned that they were occasionally discipline by being slapped with a wooden spoon. The child repeated the same information during their meeting with the pediatrician on April 22, 2022. [ 15 ] During her testimony, the mother first denied having used physical means of discipline. She later recognized having pushed the child on a few occasions and slapped the child’s brother. [ 16 ] On September 15, 2021, the police had to intervene at the family residence regarding an incident of conjugal violence.

Two children were present during the altercation and the police intervention. [ 17 ] Around October 2021, the family was referred twice to receive services from the CLSC, but the mother refused. At the time, the mother mentioned that she did not care about the child’s academic performance and their emotional distress. [ 18 ] In November 2021, the child began engaging in self-harming behaviours.

Upon discovering this situation, the mother simply mentioned that if the school finds out, they will think that it is the mother who is hurting the child. [ 19 ] In November 2021, following a psychological evaluation in relation with learning and social difficulties at school, it was recommended that the child undergo a medical examination to address their fatigue and that they be referred to the CLSC Programme Santé Mentale Jeunesse. [ 20 ] On April 21, 2022, the mother requested that the school not contact her anymore as the child was “dead to her”. This particular wording is denied by the mother.

School professionals are reporting that the mother presented as uncollaborative and dismissive of the child’s mental health. [ 21 ] On the same day, given the child’s suicidal ideations and self-harming behaviours and despite request from the Youth Protection worker, the mother refused to bring the child to the hospital. The Youth Protection worker brought the child to the hospital herself. At the hearing, the mother remained unable to explain why she did not bring the child to the hospital on that day. [ 22 ] On April 22, 2022, the child was discharged from the Hospital A.

Immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was placed in a rehabilitation centre. [ 23 ] On April 25, 2022, the Tribunal extended the application of immediate protective measures. [ 24 ] On May 4, 2022, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child to a rehabilitation centre. [ 25 ] On May 25, 2022, the child locked themselves in the school bathroom expressing that they wanted to kill themselves. [ 26 ] The child still expressed not wanting to see their parents nor their siblings. [ 27 ] The child has begun therapy with a Batshaw psychologist.

The child is receiving support from Dr. Martens at the Centre A in the Program A. The child is also on a waiting list to receive a psychiatric assessment from the Hospital B. [ 28 ] The parents reported having no previous knowledge regarding the child’s suicidal ideations and attempts. They mentioned that the child appeared happy and perceive that the child is just going “through a phase”. [ 29 ] During his testimony, the father mentioned that the child was refusing to accept gestures of affection.

He mentioned that he was neither racist, nor homophobic and that he was accepting help to rebuild his relationship with the child. [ 30 ] The parents clearly minimize or deny the existence of issues with the child. The mother simply mentioned that the child was introvert ant that she received too much information on her computer. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 c), 38 b) 1 ii, 38 e) 1 and 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, with supervision if deemed necessary and taking into consideration the child’s wishes;

[ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receive health and social services that they require; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child receive a psychiatric assessment and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is on the waitlist at the in the psychiatry program B; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child follow through with recommendations made in the psychological assessment; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to any verbal, psychological or physical abuse; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents obtain services for their insight to conjugal violence; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents follow through with all recommendations from the school to address the child’s academic and behavioral needs; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE of twelve months; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on July 27, 2022 /cd Mtre Hanane Loumi Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christophe Lafontant Counsel for the child Date of hearing: July 7, 2022