2018 QCCQ 13803, 2018 QCCQ 13803

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810764 2018 QCCQ 13803 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000834-173 DATE: October 30, 2018 (written judgment rendered on December 21, 2018) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2008 [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 and B, currently detained at Centre Fédéral de Formation, 600, Montée St-Francois at Laval, district of Laval (Quebec) H7C 1S5 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 a decision rendered on March 28, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2008. At that date, the Court declared the security and development in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family, and authorized the child’s reintegration with the mother as soon as the situation allows it. The DYP asks the Court to extend the decision until October 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 3 ] The father is absent but duly served. Considering the interest of the child and the consent of the parties, the Court authorizes to proceed in his absence. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented by Me Neptune. She agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 5 ] On March 28, 2018 , Justice Gravel was seized of X’s situation. The DYP was involved since September 2017, under voluntary measures. The father was in detention for a while.

The mother was facing alcohol consumption and personal issues which have an impact on her parental capacities. [ 6 ] X was left alone while the mother was intoxicated. She was entrusted to a foster family in October 2017, but this foster family gave up because they were overwhelmed with her behaviour.

In December 2017, the mother made some positive change in her life and the DYP wanted continuing to work with her on her issues to help her having back her daughter under her care. [ 7 ] At that time, the Court declared the security and development in danger [1] and entrusted the child to a foster family with reintegration with the mother as soon as the situation allows it. Facts [ 8 ] X is now 10 years old. After the last Court order, she was entrusted to her paternal aunt, Ms. C, but it was reported that X did not feel comfortable at this place.

She had difficulty to express her emotions and did not respect the curfew. She said that she did not return to sleep at the foster home because her aunt seemed to ignore her. Two weeks before this hearing, the aunt gave up because X did not respect the rules. X is actually entrusted to a new foster family, a teacher at school and the DYP is actually looking for an Inuit family. Before this moving, the aunt received the services of an external educator.

[ 9 ] The father has been detained in a penitentiary but was released two months ago. He is actually bonded by conditions and does not exercise any contact with his daughter. [ 10 ] The mother still displays alcohol consumption issues, and police interventions were required at her domicile. She is actually waiting for her own house which will help her to be away from consumers. [ 11 ] The DYP worker indicates that her collaboration with the services improved. According to the worker, he goes at her place every four or six weeks and she comes at DYP's office sometimes.

Asked by the Court if he organizes meetings with the mother, the worker answers: “it’s not really possible because people do not really respect appointments here” and he adds that “workers are not always in town because of Court and vacations.” [ 12 ] Regarding the follow-up with the Social Services, the DYP worker says that she has regular meetings but he is not able to testify about the frequency. [ 13 ] The mother testifies and confirms that she receives help from the Social Services and she wants to continue. She really wants her daughter back under her care and wants to do whatever is necessary to do so.

Analysis [ 14 ] The mother’s situation is still very fragile. She needs to continue her follow-up with the Social Services. She really knows that the return of her daughter is conditional to her sobriety and seems to be motivated to resolve her issues. [ 15 ] To do that, she needs to receive support from the DYP. The decisions made under the Youth Protection Act and the services provided must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. The Court can’t see how it’s possible to offer this support to the mother with meeting once every four or six weeks.

With this frequency no clinical follow-up is possible. [ 16 ] The Court considers the DYP worker’s answers as discriminating words. How can he establish a relationship of trust with these kinds of comments? The Court is also surprised, to say the less, that the attendance at Court and the worker’s vacations deprive the parents to receive the services they are entitled to benefit from. [ 17 ] The evidence demonstrates that the level of aid, counselling and assistance the mother should receive was not offered since the last Court order.

The Commission des Droits de la Personne et des droits de la Jeunesse will be invited to investigate on the matter.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X, born on [...], 2008, are still in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institute operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 21 ] TAKE ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection is looking for an Inuit family and will entrust X to as soon as one is found. [ 22 ] AUTORIZES the child’s reintegration with the mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child and that the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any measures; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother receive the services of an external educator; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a regular basis; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from consuming alcohol and drugs in the presence of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any form of violence in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol consumption issues and aggressive behaviour; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the contact between the child and mother be as frequent as possible; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 33 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations she considers appropriate;

[ 35 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 37 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: October 30, 2018