2019 QCCQ 19666, 2019 QCCQ 19666

Protection de la jeunesse — 19528 2019 QCCQ 19666 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002258-181 DATE: January 18, 2019 (written judgment rendered on February 6, 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 Town B [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 declare the security and development of the adolescent X , born on [...], 2005, in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) iii. and (f) [1] of the Youth Protection Act .

As measures, the DYP recommends the Court to entrust the youth to a rehabilitation centre until January 31, 2020. [ 2 ] The father, duly served, was present at the hearing for provisional measures, and at that time, the undersigned who presided the provisional measures hearing insisted on the importance for him to be present in Town A. The DYP organized the travelling for him to come from Town B. Despite all those measures, the father decides not to come. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 3 ] X who is 13 years old is absent.

She is entrusted at the Girls Unit in Town C, and it was not recommended for her to travel. She is represented by Me Martineau. She admits most of the alleged facts and concerning the measures, she understands it’s in her best interest to be in a rehabilitation centre, but she disagrees with the length and suggests that a six-month placement should be enough. Also she asks to be transferred to another rehabilitation centre in Town D, or in Town A or in Town E. She asks a psychological assessment and follow-up with no delay.

Facts [ 4 ] On March 15, 2018, the DYP concluded that the security and development of X were in danger in regards with serious behavioural disturbances, failure to attend school and neglect in terms of education needs. [ 5 ] On the same day, voluntary measures were signed and X was entrusted to the Group Home of Town A for one year. This placement followed a hospitalization at the Children's Hospital because X was hearing voices. At that time, she was diagnosed with a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). [ 6 ] Despite the placement at the Group Home, X continued to display behavioural disturbances.

She adopted a disrespectful attitude towards the staff and she smoked drugs. In April, she ran away many times and in May, she told to her key worker that she continues to hear voices. [ 7 ] In May 2018, X went in Town F for a home visit at her maternal grand-mother’s place. Four days after her arrival, the DYP worker was informed that she did not respect the rules and did not sleep at her grandmother. As it was also planned that she could go one month in the bush with her paternal grandparents, it was clearly expressed that if she wishes to go, she has to respect the rules.

She did and was authorized to go as planned and appreciated her stay. [ 8 ] Once returned at the Group Home at the beginning of July, X expressed feeling sad because during her home visit, her father was mostly absent and she felt like a stranger in her house. She was encouraged to maintain regular contacts by phone with her relatives.

[ 9 ] During all the month of July, she continued to hear voices at bedtime and that those voices say bad stuff to her. A close follow- up was offered since that time. [ 10 ] She went for a home visit in August, but she did not respect the rules. She ran away for three days. [ 11 ] In September, she ran away few times from the Group Home. In October she also ran away while under the supervision of an escort, on her way back from a home visit. [ 12 ] In October, her behavioural disturbances required an intervention from the Group Home many times.

She tried to pull the fire alarm and was very aggressive with the staff and was put in the isolation room for ten minutes. She stole to the grocery store and went to apologize two days after. She was hospitalized for five days because of her hallucinations and suicidal ideation and since, she has a medication to take every morning. [ 13 ] In November, the situation remains the same.

She ran away seven times and went to houses known for consumption, she made five suicidal attempts, she was physically aggressive seven times, she went three times in the isolation room, she did some death threats, she had been highly intoxicated by alcohol, she smelt nail polish, smelt markers and consumed marijuana. [ 14 ] On November 29, she was again hospitalized after having cut her wrist with razor blades and saying she wants to die.

The doctor concluded that “suicidal attempts were not due to psychiatric standpoint” and added that “it was mainly a behavioural problem and that she would benefit from a more structured living environment than the actual group home.” [2] [ 15 ] On November 29, 2018, because the situation was no more under control, she put herself in danger and she also put the other in danger, the DYP took an immediate protective measure to send her in an intensive supervision unit. [ 16 ] The DYP made request to Program A to have a place for X in an intensive unit.

Even if the situation was explained, the request was refused because “she required too much supervision and that the intensive unit cannot provide her that kind of supervision right now, since they are low staff.” [3] [ 17 ] On December 4, X was entrusted to the Girls Unit in Town C.

It’s a higher structure environment than the Group Home of Town A, but not an intensive unit. [ 18 ] On December 5, 2018, a motion for provisional measures was heard and the undersigned rendered the following decision: CONSIDERING: - The evidence is not contested and the following facts are proven; - The adolescent displays aggressive behaviour; - The adolescent often run away; - The adolescent stays outside late; - The adolescent consumes alcohol and drugs; - The adolescent displays suicidal ideation; - The adolescent was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre on March 15, 2018, and her behaviour continued to deteriorate; - The adolescent disclosed hearing voices; - The adolescent was placed in an isolation room on three occasions because she was physically aggressive; - The adolescent was hospitalized on November 29, 2018, because she cut her wrist with a razor blade and disclosed that she wants to die; - That 30 minutes after being back from the hospital she tried to choke herself at the group home; - The DYP asked to entrust her in an intensive unit in Town D but it was refused because of a lack of place; - She is still entrusted in a group home in which the structure does not permit to protect herself; - No group home in the North offers the supervision that the adolescent needs; - Her safety required a close supervision to be able to insure her physical and psychological safety; THE COURT: GRANTS the application; ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an intensive unit of a rehabilitation centre which could offer her a close supervision, for a maximum of 60 days; ORDERS that a psychological assessment of the adolescent be performed and all recommendations be followed; ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescent and her father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to their frequency

and terms; ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance, are provided to the adolescent and her father; ORDERS any police officer to collaborate to the execution of the present decision; ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this decision; FIXES the hearing under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act to January 18, 2019, at 9:30 am in the court house of Town A. [ 19 ] The social report mentions: […] Our service did everything that needed to be done in purpose of X to be accepted in this kind of unit. However, despite all the emails, every phone calls and all attempts to put her there (daily attempts), Program A refused to give her a place in an intensive unit with the excuse that there was no place for the Inuit clients right now in Town D. From November 29, 2018, since today, we are still trying to put her in an intensive supervision unit.

On December 4, 2018, the adolescent was sent to the Girls Unit in Town C. This is a unit with a higher structure than the Group Home of Town A, but this is not an intensive supervision unit. Since she is there, her behaviours are not better; […] [ 20 ] X is still at the Girls Unit in Town C and her behaviour did not improve. On December 11, she tried to commit suicide by swallowing a ring and a small piece of plastic and metal. On December 16, she smashed a perfume bottle and cut deeply herself with a piece of glass. She needed contention.

She needed another contention after having destroyed the toilet bowl and tried to swallow some pieces. [ 21 ] At the hearing, the Court asked Ms. [social worker 2] [4] if the situation improves since she signed the report and she says that X’s situation remains the same and still requires a lot of supervision and intervention.

She continues to come back at the Girls Unit while intoxicated and provide drugs to the other girls. [ 22 ] Ms. [social worker 2] confirms that the DYP continues to request on quite a daily basis to transfer X in an intensive unit, as they are not able to insure her safety at the Girls Unit, but Program A continues to refuse. Ms. [social worker 2] says, “we keep discussing with Program A about the possibility of a transfer, but we are not the ones who take the decision for that. It’s Program A that takes the decision.

So as Youth Protection we can ask, we can recommend, but we are not decisive on that decision.” She explains that herself, the workers in Town A, the workers in Town C and the DYP herself talked with Program A without any success. [ 23 ] According to the psychologist of Town G, X is considered as level 3 in terms of suicidal risk because she attempted to her life. If it would have been suicidal ideation, she would be considered to a lower level. Program A gave different reasons to refuse X.

Sometimes they say they can’t accept her because she is level 3 and sometimes it’s because there is no place. [ 24 ] As the doctor in Town A said that it was mainly a behavioural problem and not a suicidal issue, the DYP suggested that this doctor speak with the psychologist of Town G, but it was also refused by Program A. [ 25 ] The DYP asked Program A where is the adequate place for a level 3, 13-year-old girl if it’s not in an intensive unit.

They do not answer, but said that they have no place and also told they are low-staff to ensure the safety of a level 3. [ 26 ] The report describes the situation of X as follows: […] the difficult history of the adolescent for sure needs to be considered.

X went through very difficult and traumatic events; the rejection of her mother, the loss of her mother at a young age, the rejection of her father after her mother passed away, the exposure to alcohol and drugs consumption in her immediate environment, her stepmother who treats her like a child slave, the allegation of physical abuse on the part of her father, the neglect, and more. Without any doubts, those difficult events marked a child and her future. [ 27 ] X asks for psychological follow-up. She feels that she needs it a lot. The DYP agrees with this request and it’s a good thing that she asks for it.

The request is made with Dr. Beltempo for an evaluation since December 4, 2018. [ 28 ] X also asks to be transferred to a rehabilitation centre in Town D. By the voice of her lawyer, she mentions that many things happen at the Girls Unit in Town C as bulling, discrimination, suicidal ideation from many girls, etc. X does not feel comfortable there. As X was not present to testify and as Ms.

B never went to the A Unit, the Court has no more information about what’s happened there. [ 29 ] The father would have the parental capacities to take care of his daughter, but sadly he continues to be disinvested in the situation. Even if X would like to see her fa-ther more often, he does not take any steps to go to see her. The maternal grandmother has very strong bonds with X and they are very close, but she has consumption issues. Analysis [ 30 ] X has a very sad childhood and suffers from many traumas. She is acting out and actually her behaviour is out of control. She put herself and the others at risk.

She is diagnosed with a PTSD and hear voices telling her bad things. [ 31 ] After two hospitalizations, the doctor clearly indicates that she requires a very well-structured environment and can’t stay at the Group Home. She is now at the Girls Unit in Town C where the staff is not able to offer her the supervision she needs. Des-pite being there, she continues to put herself in danger. She runs away, consumes, pro-vides drugs to the others, destroys the material and attempts to her life in many ways.

It’s obvious that, as the Group Home in Town A, the Girls Unit in Town C is not adapted to her. [ 32 ] Because of her very special needs and because of the doctor’s recommendations, the Court entrusted X to an intensive Unit on December 5, 2018. Despite this order and knowing all the situation of X, Program A continues to refuse to place her in an intensive unit.

[ 33 ] The situation of X was entrusted to the DYP for the execution of the decision. The evidence reveals that the DYP took all the necessary steps to entrust X in an adapted structure before and after the decision. The Court can’t explain why another organization named Program A continues to refuse access to an adapted structure to a child. X is only 13 years old and everybody agrees that she needs to go to an intensive unit, but this access is refused because of a lack of places. [ 34 ] It’s not a question of Program A agree or not. It’s not a question of place avai-lable or not.

It’s not a question of lack of staff. It’s not a question of place available for an Inuit child or not.

It’s a question of a 13-year-old girl who needs this kind of structure, who received a recommendation from a doctor, who was entrusted in other structures not adapted to her, who continues to put herself in danger on a daily basis, and, as any other child in the province of Quebec, has the right to receive the services she needs. [ 35 ] The evidence is strong enough to justify the Court to follow the doctor recommendation and to order that X be entrusted in an intensive unit. [ 36 ] This file, as few other files heard during the week of court, raise many concerns regarding the supervision offered at the Girls Unit in Town C.

As other youths, X expressed not being well taken care, being bullied, being discriminated. The reproaches are always the same. As X was not present to express herself, the Court has no detail about the situation, but the recurrence and the similarity of the statements made indicate important difficulties in this centre. [ 37 ] The Court will recommend the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate on the situation of X (Intensive unit access refusal and Girls Unit in Town C and any other aspect).

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X , born on [ …] , 2005, are in danger under

section 38 (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 41 ] ORDERS that X be changed of rehabilitation centre and be entrusted in an intensive unit, for a maximum period of 60 days; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and health services, namely a psychological assessment and all recommendations be closely followed; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the father remains without any violent behaviour in presence of the youth; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contact between the youth and her father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection with regard to the terms, frequency and modalities; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the youth’s family; [ 49 ] ORDERS that until the psychologist’s recommendations regarding the appropriate services and follow-up X needs, that she receives a follow-up from the Social Services; [ 50 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 51 ] 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; [ 52 ] ENTRUST the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 53 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 54 ] THE WHOLE until January 31, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: January 18, 2019