2018 QCCQ 20511, 2018 QCCQ 20511

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811612 2018 QCCQ 20511 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001898-151 DATE: November 21, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 4, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 November 2, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent, until November 30, 2018, to a rehabilitation centre. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the youth’s situation has improved and he would be ready to entrust a foster family, but as the adolescent prefers to stay in a rehabilitation centre, the DYP recommends that he be maintained there with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible, until May 31, 2019. [ 3 ] The Court is also seized with the revision application for his sister, Y who is now 15 years old.

Position of the parties [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Léonard. He recognizes that the security and development of the youth are still in danger and he agrees with the measures or as X wishes. [ 5 ] The adolescent admits most of the alleged facts and asks to be entrusted to a foster family immediately. He does not want to stay at the Group Home. Historical situation [ 6 ] On March 19, 2015 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X and his sister to a foster family. [ 7 ] On May 7, 2015 , the Court heard the application for protection. X was 10 years old.

The mother passed away in January 2011. After the death of the mother, the grandmother took care of him until September 2014, when she also passed away. After X and his sister were moved from one family member to another one, but no one was reliable enough. Finally, they went to live with an aunt, Ms. C, in Town A. The aunt was hesitant about a long-term involvement with the children, but she accepted. The father hopes to have a new house soon and to be able to have the children back with him. The children developed some attachment problem.

The Court declares that the security and development of the child are in danger and entrusted him to a foster family until the end of January 2016. [ 8 ] On December 9, 2015 , the Court revised the decision. After being with a foster family in Town A who decided not to continue, the children were entrusted with Ms. D, an aunt who also gave up. They were entrusted to a cousin for two nights, but it became necessary to separate Y and X. Y was entrusted to a foster family in Town B and X went back with D. The father could not go to see his son because he is at risk to be assaulted if he goes there.

The father reduced his alcohol consumption, but always accepted consumers in his place. After few behavioural issues, X is doing better. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until August 17, 2016.

[ 9 ] On August 17, 2016 , an emergency hearing was held and the Court maintained the previous measures. [ 10 ] On September 15, 2016 , the Court revised the decision. The evidence showed that X was in a new foster family in Town B since June 2016. The father continued to improve his parental skills, but still needed help to impose some limits to people who abuse of his insouciance. X needed a lot of structure. His behaviour could be unpredictable, and he had to work on his self-esteem.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until January 27, 2017, with a reintegration with the father as soon as the situation allows it. The Court also ordered that the services of an external educator be provided, the whole until March 1, 2017. [ 11 ] On January 9, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a foster family. [ 12 ] On 27 and 28 of February 2017 , the Court was supposed to hear the application for revision, but the Court could not travel and X was nowhere to be found.

The Court maintains the previous measures. [ 13 ] On May 11, 2017 , the Court finally heard the application for revision. X was 12 years old. His behaviour deteriorated since the last order. He consumed alcohol and drugs, he was sniffing gas, he was not going to school, and he often slept at his father’s place without previous authorization. He was not living at his foster family place since February 2017. He ran away for two months before being found and entrusted to his uncle and his aunt, who finally renounced to keep him. They also had alcohol consumption issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until November 20, 2017. [ 14 ] On October 2, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 15 ] On November 2, 2017 , the application for revision was heard. The evidence showed that the children were living at the uncle and the aunt’s place (E and F), but in July 2017, the couple was so intoxicated that the children had to be removed. On July 24, 2017, when the DYP announced to X that he would entrust a foster family in Town A, the adolescent ran away for a few weeks.

A warrant was issued and he was found on September 27, 2017, and entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. The father helps his son to hide from the DYP services. The father was always the victim of his insouciance and was abused by other people. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2018, with a minimal regime of access rights. Facts [ 16 ] X is in the Group Home in Town C since the last order. He is doing very well.

His aunt is available to keep him and his sister, but he told the DYP that he does not want to live in Town B. [ 17 ] The DYP worker thinks that the village of Town B reminds him bad memories. For this reason, The DYP looked for foster families in other villages. She knows that the two children would like to stay in Town C, but there is no foster family available in Town C. The children are informed about the lack of foster families in Town C.

The DYP made steps to find foster families in Town B, in Town D and they checked with the grandparents, but no foster family was found. [ 18 ] The children are very close together and it’s possible that they would like to be entrusted in the same foster family. It’s difficult to know exactly because they change their mind often. [ 19 ] The father wants that the desire of his children be respected. He understands they prefer to stay in Town C. According to him, the village of Town B is associated with bad memories. [ 20 ] The Court asked questions about the health follow-up done after Y’s psychological assessment.

As the worker was new in the file and was not aware, the Court suspended the hearing and continues the day after to let the worker make some verification. [ 21 ] During this adjournment, the worker read the psychological report made about Y, called the Group Home staff and met with the children. [ 22 ] After this adjournment, she confirms that no personal follow-up was offered to help X with the attachment problem noted by the Court in 2015. [ 23 ] The children told her that they would like to be in the same foster family and in another village than Town B.

Analysis [ 24 ] The many changes of mind from X reveal that he is totally torn and unable to project himself in the future. [ 25 ] Considering the project of a reintegration in a foster family is not clear enough yet, and the risk associated to a premature reintegration, the Court will maintain X at the Group Home with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible. This will give time to the DYP and to X, to share their point of view. [ 26 ] The potential attachment trouble will have to be evaluated.

It’s important to address this issues and to take the necessary step to resolve it if necessary before X starts the adult life. [ 27 ] The Court agrees with the goals of intervention listed in the revision report: - X develops positively in his future foster family and participates to the success of this future placement. - X respect the rules and the authority in the foster home. - X feels well taken care by his caregiver. - X pursues his schooling.

- X participates in his follow-up with all the workers involved. [ 28 ] The father is very significant in X’s life. He needs to continue to work on his parental skills and on his personal difficulties in order to keep his relation with his son. It’s important to maintain this positive and significant relation.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are still in danger; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a Group Home with reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that it will be the Group Home of Town C; [ 33 ] ORDERS that X and Y be reintegrated together in the same foster family.

If it’s not possible, in different families according to the wishes of each youth; [ 34 ] ORDERS very frequent contacts between X and Y; Considering that the medical services were not provided as it was recommended by the professionals: [ 35 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment be performed for X regarding attachment or any other pathology and that the recommendations be followed and explained to the youth and his foster family; [ 36 ] ORDERS that this evaluation be done in a delay of two months; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by the Court and cooperate fully with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the father reports in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 41 ] ORDERS that all contact between the youth and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the frequency, modalities and degree of supervision; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the father and the foster family; [ 43 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until April 19, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the father Dates of hearing: November 20 and 21, 2018