2019 QCCQ 5213, 2019 QCCQ 5213

Protection de la jeunesse — 194980 2019 QCCQ 5213 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000220-084 DATE: January 15, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on August 21, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre until June 7, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to entrust the youth to the care of his maternal aunt, Ms. B. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] X who is 16 years old is present and represented by Me Martineau. He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the measures. Facts [ 5 ] On June 6, 2008 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 5 and a half years old. The mother had left City A for City B in June 2007, leaving her son under the care of different family members. On January 30, 2008, the child was entrusted in a stable family in City C. The DYP knew the mother was unstable, but was not aware of her exact situation.

The mother came in City D for the court hearing, but did not show up at the court house. The child was doing well in his foster family. He improved his behaviour, but he missed his mother a lot. The Court declared that the security and development of X was in danger and mentioned that no more instability would be tolerated in his situation. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of six months and recommended the same foster family. [ 6 ] On December 17, 2008 , another time, the mother came in City D for the court hearing, but did not come at the court house.

She did not show any interest to improve her situation. Since the last hearing, she spent a few weeks in City A, but never ask for a visit with her son and left back to City B without notifying the DYP. The child continued to do very well in his foster family. The Court mentioned that it’s time to think about a life plan. The Court maintained X in a foster family for another 12 months. [ 7 ] On December 12, 2009 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. The mother was present and contested the long- term placement requested by the DYP. She asked to prolong for a few months.

She was still living in City B and did not communicate with her son. She wanted to change her way of life, but did nothing in this way. X continued to do very well. The foster family is available on a long term basis, and he wished to stay there. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family (

C) until he reaches his majority. [ 8 ] On October 25, 2011 , the Court was seized with a provisional measures application and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 9 ] On December 6, 2011 , as X was 9 years old, the Court revised his situation. He was placed with his grandparents, but in September 2011, they said not being able to keep him because of his aggressiveness and his behaviour out of control. The mother came

in City D for the hearing. She was still living in City B, but being stable. She would like to have her son under her care in the following months. The child was entrusted to a specialized foster family. A visit in City B was planned for Christmas Holidays. The mother called her son every day, and she was sober for the six previous months. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre, if possible, the same one until June 23, 2012, with a reintegration with the mother if possible.

The Court also ordered that the child continue to be followed by the CLSC Social worker for a psychological treatment to address his difficult behaviour. Finally, the Court ordered that the mother receive services from [center A]. [ 10 ] On June 12, 2012 , the Court ordered the compulsory foster care of the child in a rehabilitation centre until August 22, 2012. [ 11 ] On August 21, 2012 , the Court was seized with the application for revision. The evidence showed that the beginning of the placement in a specialized foster family was very difficult.

The DYP did not understand why because the mother was very present by her regular phone calls and she was very supportive. After a few weeks, the situation got better and the child finished to do very well. Only the bed time remained difficult. X went to City B for Christmas, and it went very well. He went another time in City B for the March break, but this time, it was difficult as he was aggressive with his mother. The mother said not being able to take care of him on a daily basis.

The Court described the child as “a bright 9-year-old boy who sometimes continues to have negative behaviour due to the emotional deprivation, neglect, rejection and traumas he experienced at a very young age.” The Court entrusted him to a specialized foster family for a period of one year and ordered that his situation, specifically regarding his relation with his mother, be evaluated by a psychologist. [ 12 ] On July 31, 2013 , the Court noted that the situation went relatively well at the specialized foster family, with whom he created good bonds. The mother was still in City B where she was studying.

She maintained regular contact with her son. At school, X was doing well. He was still taking his medication even if he did not always agree with that. The foster mother, Ms. D, was willing to have him on a long term basis. The Court entrusted the child to Ms. D for a period of one year. [ 13 ] On December 19, 2013 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and X was entrusted to a foster family. On January 3, 2014, another provisional measure was ordered and he was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 14 ] On January 21, 2014 , the Court revised the decision.

The evidence showed that two weeks after the last decision, X became violent with Ms. D and the police intervention was needed. In September, Ms. D admitted being overwhelmed. In October, the child was entrusted to a foster family in City B, but as this foster family has other children, it was not possible to continue there. He was entrusted in the Group Home in City E. He maintained regular contact with Ms. D. The mother on her side was less present and she reduced the frequency of her phone calls.

The Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre until August 30, 2014, with a possible reintegration in a foster family and with a psychological follow-up. [ 15 ] On September 3, 2014 , the hearing was postponed and the status quo maintained. [ 16 ] On October 16, 2014 , the mother expressed the desire to come back living in the North, to have a house and to take care of her son. She held a grudge against the DYP, and did not want to have anything to do with them. The Court said that “she seemed to have sacrificed her relation with her son in the last years, because she was at war with the DYP”.

The Court considered that she did not take the necessary steps to maintain contact with her son. X appeared very discouraged during the previous weeks. He only spoke about the fact that his mother would have abandoned him. He cried during a few hours in a row. His situation continued to get worse. He showed oppositional behaviours and signs of depression. The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre until March 18, 2015. [ 17 ] On March 16, 2015 , as X was now 12 years old, he continued to have behavioural issues. He missed his mother a lot and expressed the desire to live with her.

As the mother previously lived in City B, the DYP did not know anymore where she was and with whom she lived. She promised to her son to come back living in the North, but she never came. She did not express any position about her son’s future. During that time, the youth continued to put himself in danger.

The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre and ordered a psychiatric and psychological follow-up, the whole until September 30, 2015. [ 18 ] On September 30, 2015 , the Court ordered the compulsory foster care of the youth in a rehabilitation centre. [ 19 ] On November 9, 2015 , the Court revised the decision. The mother was working at [Company A]. She was hesitant between to live in City A close to her family, or get married and staying in City B. X would like to live in a foster family as soon as possible.

The bonds were very good between the mother and her son and he was doing well when she had regular contact with him. She had a positive impact on her son. The Court noted that the youth lived two years in a rehabilitation centre. He was only 13 years old. The DYP did not find a family member available to foster him. The adolescent needed to keep hope to behave well.

The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months followed by a placement in a foster family until November 30, 2016. [ 20 ] On November 7, 2016 , the Court noted that the mother was living in City A and still working at [Company A]. She maintained regular contact with her son, but the youth had difficulty to open up with her about his feelings. During summer 2016, he was arrested for cruelty against animals. He was not going to school regularly and still had behavioural issues. He was diagnosed with hyperactivity, but did not take his medication regularly.

In September, he was also diagnosed with tuberculosis and he refused his medication. He did not respect the foster family rules. The mother has alcohol consumption issues, and is involved in a violent conjugal relationship. The Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months and authorized a reintegration with the mother if possible. The Court also ordered the services of an external educator, the medication and a psychological follow-up until August 31, 2017. [ 21 ] On April 4, 2017 , the Court noted that the youth did very well until December 2016.

After that it was necessary to entrust him to an intensive unit, where he made a lot of improvement. The mother offered a good collaboration. The Court entrusted him a rehabilitation centre until the end of June 2017, followed by a reintegration at his mother’s place with the services of an external educator. [ 22 ] On June 15, 2017 , the evidence showed that the youth hit his mother and she required to be medevaced. The youth said he did not appreciate her mother’s boyfriend and he threatened to kill his mother. The mother continued to offer a good collaboration.

Since this event he was at the Group Home, but he did not like that. He would prefer to be in a foster family. The Court entrusted him to a

rehabilitation centre until December 30, 2017. [ 23 ] On December 19, 2017 , the evidence showed that X stayed at the Group Home in City F. He did well in a well-structured environment. The mother still has the same issue as she relapsed, but she received services from the Social Services and she collaborated well with the external educator. In August, while intoxicated she fired two gun shots in the bedroom. Her boyfriend did not press charges, so she was not arrested. The youth had regular home visit, but in November 2017, he was arrested while intoxicated.

The Court maintained him to a rehabilitation centre until June 30, 2018. [ 24 ] On June 21, 2018 , the Court ordered the compulsory foster care of X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 25 ] On August 21, 2018 , X was in City F for around two years. A few events of behavioural disturbances occurred between February and May 2018. The mother still has consumption issues. The youth would like to live with his mother in City A, with the services of an external educator. In March 2018, a conjugal violence event brought the mother in detention for three weeks.

Since October 2017, the mother and her boyfriend did not go to the Social Services. Only the youth worked on his difficulties. The Court maintained him at the rehabilitation centre until June 7, 2019, and authorized a reintegration with the services of an external educator. [ 26 ] On December 6, 2018 , the Court ordered the compulsory foster care of X in a foster family. Facts [ 27 ] On August 22, 2018, the day after the last decision, the youth ran away. After the court hearing, the mother was supposed to stay with him, but he took advantage of a lack of supervision during a few minutes and he left.

A warrant was requested and issued on September 24, 2018, but the warrant was possibly lost. The DYP knew that X travelled from City D to City A a few times. [ 28 ] Questioned by the Court, the DYP confirmed that X could travel only by plane between the two villages, as there is no road and it’s not possible to travel by skidoo in August. Despite that, nothing was done with the airport authorities to stop him, so he could travel as he wanted. [ 29 ] At the beginning of November, the DYP worker heard that X or his family members made some steps register him at school.

The mother admitted that he lives with her and her sister would be willing to take care of him. X’s aunt was met, and she confirmed her availability. The youth works at the gas station since he is back in City A, and he continues his steps to go to school. The DYP worker supports those steps. [ 30 ] On December 4, the youth met with the new worker assigned to his file. He mentioned being ambivalent regarding his intention to go to school, but he goes regularly, as he knows he has to. The school principal confirms that he arrives every day on time.

The youth would appreciate having facilities to be able to continue to work during his studies. The school principal agrees with this request and a meeting should take place in January 2019, to adjust his calendar. [ 31 ] Except on August 22, 2018, when the mother did not supervise the youth, she offers a very good collaboration with the DYP worker. She communicated regularly during the running away. She reduced her alcohol consumption, and her conjugal relationship is getting better. The mother works at the water plan.

As the couple stopped his follow-up with the Social Services regarding their conjugal issues, the DYP consider the improvement too recent to confirm being on the good way. [ 32 ] The relation between the youth and his mother is also getting better. The mother would like that he would come to see her more often, to give some respite to his aunt who has a lot of children at home. [ 33 ] X appreciates being back in his community with his aunt.

He respects the rules and always ask authorization before going somewhere and he comes back in time. [ 34 ] The DYP worker meets with X and his aunt once a week to help her establish a routine at home. He also communicates with school to make sure the youth attends regularly.

The DYP worker also asked for an external educator and hope this service will be provided shortly. [ 35 ] X said being tired of having the DYP in his life, but he collaborates. [ 36 ] Regarding the follow-up that the youth received during the last years, regarding his traumas, the DYP worker confirms that he had ongoing support from the educators at the rehabilitation centre. According to him, he did not receive external help. [ 37 ] The Court questioned about the different orders rendered regarding psychological and psychiatric help.

As the worker was new in the file and did not have the answer, a suspension was authorized to make some verification. The DYP came back saying that a psychological evaluation was performed in December 2016, by Dr. Beltempo. He concluded that the youth would suffer from ADHD, oppositional treats, intellectual disability and inattention difficulties. Dr. Beltempo recommended that X live in an open structure environment as a Group Home, a follow-up with Dr.

Larose, an anger replacement treatment with the psychologist working in City D and a psychoeducational assessment. [ 38 ] The DYP worker does not know if the recommendations were followed. He only has the information provided by X himself to the fact that he never came in City D to see a doctor. [ 39 ] The DYP worker is involved in this file since December 2018. During his intervention he did not notice and he was not informed of any behavioural issues from the youth.

That being said, the DYP worker considers that his evaluation period was too short to be able to assert that the behavioural issues are past history and won’t reoccur. [ 40 ] X testifies and says that his life is much better than one year ago. He is very happy to live with his aunt. He loves doing traditional activities with his family members. He sees his mother every day. He likes going to school and he loves his job also.

Analysis [ 41 ] X has a long history of placements. After being entrusted to a foster family when he was 4 years old, he was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre at 9 years old for the first time, and he stayed there most of the time. [ 42 ] Each time he came at the court house, X told missing his mother and willing to live in a family environment. Sometimes he reacted very strongly and the placement continued sometimes because of his behavioural issues, and sometimes because his mother was not ready to have him. [ 43 ] Doing so, he was deprived to grow up with the love and the care of his mother.

He did not develop healthy attachment. Finally, he ran away a few months and came back in his community, where he starts to live a normal life with his family members and by going to school. [ 44 ] The Court has difficulty to understand how nothing was done to find the youth during all this period. A warrant was issued one month later, but it was lost. He travelled by plane as he wanted and nobody stopped him. During all this period, his situation was entrusted to the DYP for the execution of the decision. Nothing wrong happened fortunately, he was able to provide for himself and to find a place to stay.

Was he safe? The Court can’t have more information as nobody knows, or nobody asks where he was and what he did. [ 45 ] But during all that time, he continued to live with, as Justice Lemoine said in 2012, his emotional deprivation, neglect, rejection and traumas he experienced at a very young age. And despite the Court order rendered in 2011, he did not receive any kind of professional follow-up.

The Court reiterated many time his needs regarding the mental health, but nothing was done since 2011. [ 46 ] In 2016, finally the psychological evaluation requested in 2012 was performed, but the recommendation were never applied. [ 47 ] Today, X is 16 years old, the DYP is involved in his life for at least the last 10 years, the mother’s presence is irregular in his life since 11 and a half years (he was 4 years old). Actually his life is exactly what he hoped for the last few years. But we have no right to consider the situation resolved.

The traumas he suffered are present and it will take more than a magic wand to heal those traumas. [ 48 ] It’s obvious that X did not receive, not only the services he deserved, but the services ordered many times by the Court and recommended by a professional. No reason was provided to the Court to explain this lack of involvement in this file. The one who suffers the consequences is the youth and as a result of the domino effect, the following generation. Everybody knows that a person living with those kinds of traumas are more at risk to increase the intergenerational traumas. [ 49 ] The

section 2.3 (

a) of the YPA is clear: 2.3. Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger; [ 50 ] A situation as the one of X does not respect the principle of the law. It’s not tolerable that a situation continues to be in danger on such a long period. For sure, without services, the situation can’t get better, it only could become worse. [ 51 ] As mentioned, he decides of his future by leaving and coming back a few months after at his aunt’s place.

Seeing that everything is going well, there is no reason to refuse to grant the application and the measures as requested, as it’s in his best interest. That being said, the DYP has to stay involved, and finally, offer a close follow-up to the family to make sure that the youth would be able to live a success once in his life. [ 52 ] His aunt has many children at home, from 2 years old to young adult, with their own difficulties. She has to be supported in her involvement with X.

She has to be aware that she can ask for help anytime she needs without being afraid that the youth could be entrusted again in a rehabilitation centre. The principle of

section 4 should guide the DYP intervention: 4. Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment.

If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible.

Moreover, the parents’ involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. If, in the interest of the child, returning the child to the family is impossible, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

A decision made under the second or third paragraph regarding a Native child must aim at entrusting the child to an alternative living environment capable of preserving his cultural identity, by giving preference to a member of his extended family or his community or nation. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 53 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 54 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to his maternal aunt, Ms. B, as a foster family if she’s accredited as such;

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

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 57 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 58 ] ORDERS that the youth attend school or another place of learning or participates in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the youth and the family receive the services of an external educator; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and services required by his situation, notably a pediatrician evaluation, and that the recommendations be followed; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr.

E remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the mother and Mr. E refrain from any form of aggression or violence in the presence of the youth; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the mother seek help through Social Services concerning her alcohol consumption and personal issues; [ 64 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 65 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the mother, Mr.

E and the aunt; [ 66 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 67 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 68 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 69 ] RECOMMENDS the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate in this file; [ 70 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 15, 2019