2018 QCCQ 13911, 2018 QCCQ 13911

Protection de la jeunesse — 195590 2018 QCCQ 13911 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000658-150 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 4, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother and B, deceased ______________________________________________________________________ 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 April 16, 2018, regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and ordered that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP asks the Court to extend this decision until July 31, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Léonard. She recognizes that the security and development of her daughter are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] X who is now 15 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune. She admits most of the allegation and she agrees with the measures.

Historical situation [ 5 ] On June 16, 2015 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. She was 11 years old and her father recently passed away from cancer. The mother was frequently in City A to receive cancer treatment. X was exposed to alcohol consumption and conjugal violence. She developed behavioural disturbances and because of that she was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre on fall 2014. The disturbances continued to escalate. Two months before the hearing she calmed down.

Justice Gravel declared that the security and development of X are in danger and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre with a possible reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. [ 6 ] On September 1, 2015 , X underwent to a psychological assessment. The psychologist recommended: The test data, the clinical interview and the accompanying documentation showed a profile consistent with Oppositional Defiance end Disruptive Disorder. X is more than likely reacting to a social environment that was rife with emotional neglect and physical abuse.

Only now X is starting to scratch the surface in terms of making a link between acting out and those underlying traumas. We are at the very beginning of this process and she may not have the capacity to talk about such traumatic events. In addition to this the very two parents who abused her have abandoned her emotionally and so she has a double loss . Her father passed away in April 2015 from cancer and more recently her mother has developed cancer, she is not doing well physically and living on the streets in City A: she has made very little effort to contact her daughter. X is a parentified child .

She worries about her mother; however she has also been negatively influenced by both her mother and father who have led to poor recognition of consequences and poor limits. In the past year she has been at the Specialized Foster Home. She has started to turn her life around; only in the past two months her behaviors and academic performance speak to the tremendous growth she has accomplished. Given this very fragile situation I would highly recommend that she remain in the Specialized Foster Home or a similar environment where there is strong support and structure for her to be able to express her emotions.

I would also highly recommend that we respect her ability to go at her own pace. If there a Key Worker who could

counsel her, it would take quite a while because emotionally she is proceeding at a very low pace. In terms of her emotional growth she is quite stunted. She would benefit from intensive and consistent support from a counselor . Also we recommend a Shadow for her in school which could be gradually withdrawn depending on her behavior. If X could stay in a Specialized Foster Home for one year or similar environment it would be beneficial. She needs to consolidate a positive experience for at least one year before we move her into a regular foster home.

If by age alone, she cannot stay any longer in a Specialized Foster Home (because she turns 12 in November 2015) then I would strongly urge that she receive all the counselling and support services, preferably from a female counselor or services that could ‘wrap around her needs’ so as to replicate services of the Specialized Foster Home. It is quite evident that there is a strong correlation between the contacts between the mother and daughter by telephone or physical contact; X showed much disappointment and negative acting out subsequent to those contacts.

Although the mother may not survive the cancer I would recommend that X have contacts with her mother but that they be supervised and supported in a way to minimize the negatives. She would have to be given an opportunity to grieve with a support Counselor, to express some of the frustrations and anger of her past. [ 7 ] On March 14, 2016 , Justice Gravel is seized of the revision. X was still in a rehabilitation centre. A foster family was found and she wished to be entrusted there immediately because she said being bullied at the rehabilitation centre.

The Court maintained her placement in a rehabilitation centre because of her behaviour until the end of June 2016, and entrusted her to a foster home after this date, recommending the foster family be Ms. C. The Court also recommends psychological follow-up and services from an external educator. [ 8 ] On August 19, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The mother was still absent. X had difficulty to respect the rules at home. She ran away and she was suspended from school. The foster family was overwhelmed, and X was entrusted to a Group Home.

Once there she was seen smoking cannabis and displaying behavioural disturbances. Justice Gravel entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family of an extended family member as soon as the situation allows it. [ 9 ] On August 17, 2017 , the situation of the mother remained the same. X stayed in different foster families. None accepted to keep her because of her drug and alcohol consumption. Those moving had an impact on her schooling, and she did not have a successful year. The Court noted that the psychological follow-up was not started yet. X was living with her aunt recently.

Justice Leduc entrusted the child to a foster family with the services of an external educator. [ 10 ] On April 16, 2018 , X’s situation was getting worse. She displayed suicidal ideation and the foster family was overwhelmed. Justice Gravel entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. Facts [ 11 ] The hearing was scheduled on October 30, 2018, but the DYP alleged that X was nowhere to be found and asked for a mandate under

section 35.3 YPA. The evidence shows that the DYP knew where X was and it would have been possible to bring her at the court house. The Court refused to grant this mandate and ordered to take the necessary steps to locate her and to make sure that she would take the plane to come at the court house the day after. [ 12 ] On October 31, 2018, X was present and the hearing took place. [ 13 ] Since the last order, the mother has been difficult to contact. She had few communications with her daughter, but the contacts still had a negative impact on X.

For many years, the mother told her daughter that she is on her death bed and X is very affected. [ 14 ] The mother who was living in City A went back to City B at the end of August 2018. She is working part-time at the school as replacement. Even if she is in the community, the worker does not have a lot of information regarding her whereabouts. According to him, she should live with family members. [ 15 ] X stayed at the Group Home A from March 11, 2018, to May 21, 2018. During her stay, she ran away many times for days in a row. She went back by her own when she needed a place to stay.

Frequently she went back with injuries and admitted that she was in conflict with other girls in the village. [ 16 ] On May 21, 2018, she was transferred to the [centre A] in City A, a more secure unit and on June 21, 2018, she was transferred to an “Encadrement intensif” unit to stop her at risk and dangerous behaviour. [ 17 ] The rehabilitation workers reported that she self-mutilates sometimes. She expresses having a lot of anger and being unable to know where it’s come from. Her feeling of anger could be out of control, according to her. [ 18 ] X changes her wishes about her future many times.

Sometimes she asks to stay at the rehabilitation centre in City A, sometimes she asks to go back to a rehabilitation centre in the North and she also asks to be entrusted to a foster family in City A. As she is not able to express her emotion, she does not explain how she feels and why she would prefer a place to another one. [ 19 ] X expressed the desire to entrust a drug and alcohol addiction therapy centre. According to the DYP, this request can’t be answered now because of her behaviour. As the therapy centres are not closed units, it would not be possible to insure her safety.

The worker adds that it would be necessary to evaluate if her request is serious or if it’s only to avoid a placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 20 ] Asked by the Court about the psychological follow-up offered to X as previously ordered, the worker answered that it’s not planned to offer one.

Actually the goals are to work on her behaviour, to help her to develop strong bonds with her key worker in a way to help her to express her emotions. [ 21 ] Following the questions of the Court, the worker admits that a new psychological evaluation should be relevant to intervene with X and a drug and alcohol addiction assessment should also be. The worker adds that, according to X, she enjoyed smoking marijuana regularly, but he doesn’t think that she smokes at the unit. That being said, his main concern remains the alcohol consumption issues which were more problematic before she entrusted the placement.

[ 22 ] Regarding her schooling, the DYP worker explained that as she was registered in French school in City B, she should need to have an eligibility certificate to be registered in English in the rehabilitation centre in City A which is an English one. It’s very long to obtain this certificated, but as the DYP plans to entrust her in a rehabilitation centre in the North, this will not be an issue anymore. [ 23 ] Since the last order, X benefited from two home visits which took place at her cousin’s, Ms. D, a foster family for the DYP.

The home visits went very well. [ 24 ] Since she is in City A, her behaviour improves. The [centre A] staff “believes that she still needs to remain at the unit because this is an essential time for her to keep working on herself in order to achieve a more long-term change. She can still be explosive, but her behaviour has stabilized more since the beginning of the placement.” [1] Analysis [ 25 ] The situation of X remains in danger. Even if it seems to get better, the situation was very worrying when she was in the [Group Home A]. She was all the time in a risky situation.

It was important and urgent to entrust her in a more intensive unit. [ 26 ] Fortunately, improvements are noted. A lot of work remains to be done. X will need to be able to express her emotion and to understand why she has so much anger. A psychological assessment was done in 2016, but since that time no follow-up was offered and despite the Court order, it’s not planned to offer one. She put her at risk, she feels anger and she has suicidal ideation.

For sure, the psychological follow-up would have help her, but the DYP did not respect the court order since March 2016. [ 27 ] As the situation gets worse since this evaluation, a new one is required and an evaluation for her addiction is also necessary. It will help to know if her desire to entrust a therapy centre is serious, and if she needs it or if help could be offered in another way. [ 28 ] The Court has also concerns about the schooling. She is in City A since may and can’t go to school. Today the DYP plans to move her back in the North but the rehabilitation staff consider she need to stay in City A.

Will she go finally go to school? In the North in French or in the City A with the required certificate? This aspect will have to be resolved shortly as the schooling is mandatory. [ 29 ] This time, the recommendations will have to be followed in a way to, as the philosophy of the YPA requires, put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security and the development of X are in danger.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the application; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a drug and alcohol addiction assessment be done with X and that the recommendations set out by the professional be followed; [ 34 ] ORDERS that X receive health care and health services required by her situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that X participate in a psychological assessment and that the recommendations of the psychologist be followed including any other evaluation he could suggest; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the health professional involved in X’s situation to have access to her complete medical and schooling files; [ 37 ] ORDERS that X and her mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that X attend school or another place of learning; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the services of an external educator be provided to X, her mother and the foster family on a frequent basis; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 42 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the mother, as well as the foster family if applicable; [ 44 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 45 ] 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; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 47 ] THE WHOLE until August 9, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 31, 2018