2022 QCCQ 8026, 2022 QCCQ 8026

Protection de la jeunesse — 222375 2022 QCCQ 8026 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002136-171 DATE: February 1, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTIAN LEBLANC J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2009 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, having a place of business in [...] Applicant and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on September 10, 2021, by the undersigned, regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2009. [ 2 ] At that date, I declared that the security and development of X was still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family until March 10, 2022. [ 3 ] The Director submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the placement has to be prolonged. [ 4 ] Indeed, the DYP argue that the youth is displaying behavioral problems and is therefore asking the Court to entrust the child to a rehabilitation centre, with gradual reintegration with the foster family if the situation allows it, the whole for a period of one year.

Position of the parties [ 5 ] The mother is not present but she is represented. She recognizes that the security and development of X are still in danger under the alleged

section and she agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The father is not present, nor represented. [ 7 ] Ms [Social Worker 1], social worker, testified about the steps she took to reach the father before the day of the present hearing. He was served the documents on November 11, 2021 and she tried many times to reach him since then, without success. It is also established that he is not really involved in his son’s life. [ 8 ] Therefore, the Court DECLARES having jurisdiction to proceed in his absence. [ 9 ] The youth is present and represented.

He recognizes that his security and development are still in danger and he agrees with the measures. [ 10 ] The youth’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in his best interest. Facts [ 11 ] The evidence presented in Court establish clearly that the father still struggle with an alcohol consumption and that he is not involved in his son’s life.

[ 12 ] As for the mother, she is still living in City A and the DYP have no way to reach her since her personal cell phone has been disconnected. Furthermore, on the rare occasion that the DYP was able to talk to her on the phone, the mother refused to disclose her address. Finally, during the last measure, the mother never reach out to the DYP to ask for visits with her son. [ 13 ] Before and after the last court hearing, the youth displayed violent behaviour on many occasions at school.

On two occasions, the youth needed to be restrained physically by the school personnel because his violent behaviours were putting himself and others in danger. For better understanding, a calendar was filed by the Director indicating the moment of each of those events, who led to the youth’s expulsion from the school. [ 14 ] A meeting was set between the Director and the school principal, to address the situation.

During that meeting, the school director expressed that most of the teachers were afraid of X violent behaviours. [ 15 ] During the same meeting, the school director confirmed that the youth was not provided the services of a “shadow”, even if one was requested by the DYP and agreed on by the school vice-principal. [ 16 ] The evidence presented indicate that the DYP then suggested a part-time

schedule for the youth, but that proposal was refused by the school principal, since he was afraid to lose teachers if the youth was to come back to school. Finally, the school agreed to prepare a special

schedule for X. [ 17 ] During the fall, X continued to display worrisome behaviour both in school and at home. [ 18 ] On November 18, while X was playing physically with his older sister and friends, the game became too intense and the youth started to choke his sister. That event brought the foster mother to give up on the youth, because she was scared for her safety and the safety of her children.

An emergency measure was then taken and the youth was transfer to a rehabilitation centre. analysis [ 19 ] The Court is seized with the situation of a 12 years old boy who is displaying behavioural problems that need to be addressed. [ 20 ] Following the evidence that was presented at the last hearing held on September 10, 2021, the Court specifically ordered that the DYP take the necessary step to implement all the recommendations issued by the psychiatrist Dr.

Joseph Beltempo. [ 21 ] Therefore, the Court ordered that the following evaluation be done by the DYP, namely: • an neuropsychological evaluation • an evaluation of a potential TDHD • an evaluation of potential learning difficulty • the evaluation of a potential FASD, and • the evaluation of a potential post traumatic syndrome disorder [ 22 ] On February 1, 2022, none of the ordered evaluations had been done and the youth had only met once a new psychiatrist in November. [ 23 ] Apart from expressing that they prioritized the problems encountered in school, the DYP had no real specific explanation to justify that none of the ordered evaluations has been done, more than four months after being ordered by the Court.

Today, the DYP is telling the Court that the TDHD evaluation might be done in a delay ranging between a couple of weeks and a couple of months. [ 24 ] The least the Court can say, is that the youth cannot put his problems on hold, waiting for the DYP to perform those much- needed evaluations. [ 25 ] Therefore, the Court will order them again.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth are still in danger; [ 28 ] ACKNOWLEDGE that the many evaluations that were ordered on September 10, 2021 were not done during the last five months, namely an evaluation for TDHD, an evaluation for potential learning problems, an evaluation for potential FASD-Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, an post-traumatic symptom disorder evaluation and finally the neuropsychological evaluation; [ 29 ] ORDERS the DYP to take the necessary steps to make sure that those evaluations are done within the next two months; [ 30 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the services provided to the child at the present time be maintained if not improved in frequency; [ 31 ] ORDERS the DYP to take all the necessary steps to make sure that the child receives all the services he needs, particularly in terms of medication and health; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center, chosen by the institution operating a

child and youth protection center; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES that the youth be gradually reintegrated in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of their current situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 38 ] ORDERS the Direction of youth protection to facilitate the transportation of the mother to the place of residence of the child, if she collaborates with them to organise such visits; [ 39 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of youth protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, traveling and passport; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober all time in the presence of the child; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, to the foster family and his family until February 1, 2023; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of youth protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment.

Signed on March 9, 2022 __________________________________ CHRISTIAN LEBLANC , J.C.Q. Me Justine Carli, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Mr B, father, not represented Date of hearing: February 1, 2022