2022 QCCQ 14334, 2022 QCCQ 14334

Protection de la jeunesse — 229001 2022 QCCQ 14334 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001425-112 DATE: August 9, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 28, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2007 [Social worker 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A.

Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on February 17, 2015, regarding the adolescent X, born on […], 2007. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family, namely to Ms. C until her majority. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the youth under the care of Ms. C and asks that she be entrusted to a foster family, until August 31, 2023.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Michaël Pereira. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent. He is not involved in the life of his child. Considering the best interest of the child, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] X is 14 ½ years old. She is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The youth has a sister, Y (13 ½ y).

The Court is also seized with her situation. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On April 5, 2012 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court. She was 4 ½ years old. The evidence showed that the father was seen sexually abusing his daughter X in May 2011. When informed, the mother got separated, but consented that the father had access alone with the children. One year after, the father decided to move to his own community with Y. After Y had been sexually abused by her uncle, she was brought back to [City A] by the father and entrusted to a foster family.

On her side, the mother had alcohol consumption issues. The Court declared that the security and development of the children were endangered [1] and entrusted them to a foster family for 12 months with a progressive reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it. The Court ordered different follow- ups for the parents, the whole for a period of 18 months. [ 8 ] On May 26, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence shows that the situation remained the same and that the parents did not get involved in their children’s lives.

The Court maintained the children in a foster family and asked the DYP to prepare a life plan for them, until October 31, 2014. [ 9 ] On February 17, 2015 , the Court revised the situation again. The children had been entrusted under their maternal grandmother’s care, and they were doing well. They were very attached to her. The father had been incarcerated for conjugal violence,

and since his release, he remained sober and completed a therapy to address his alcohol consumption. He never addressed his sexual deviance, but for an unknown reason, he is living with some of his children (not the one concerned) without anyone being scared about the situation. He did not have contact with X, but he had phone calls with Y. The mother was able to control her consumption and the children did not see her intoxicated since the last decision. She had regular contact with her daughters.

The Court entrusted the children to their maternal grandmother until they reach their majority. [ 10 ] On April 8, 2022 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the youth to a foster family. Facts [ 11 ] Since a few years now, the 2 girls are entrusted to their maternal grandmother, Ms. C. She is known to have alcohol consumption issues. [ 12 ] X is a nice adolescent, who attends school regularly and who is never in trouble. [ 13 ] In March, May and June 2021, the DYP received worrisome information about what happened at the maternal grandmother’s place.

The grandmother admitted her consumption. X disclosed that there was a lack of food at home because her grandmother used the money to buy alcohol instead of food. X also mentioned that her grandmother would fight with other adults when she is intoxicated. [ 14 ] When her grandmother consumes, X is used to sleep somewhere else. She usually goes to Ms. D’s house (an accredited foster family for the DYP). [ 15 ] The Court questioned the DYP worker about the steps taken when the children disclosed such information.

The DYP explained that a place was found for the night, but ignored if the option to move the children had been considered at that time. [ 16 ] After that, the DYP receive information in January 2022. Also questioned about the steps taken between June 2021 and January 2022, the DYP worker answers that spots check had been made, the situation appeared to be not ideal, but correct. [ 17 ] Between January 2021 and April 2022, no specific interventions were made to ensure the children’s safety. X went by herself to other houses and notified the DYP each time, and the DYP agreed.

Y, on her side, preferred to stay at her grandmother’s place and no intervention was done. [ 18 ] On April 6, 2022, the DYP decided to withdraw the accreditation of the maternal grandmother as a foster family. Y was entrusted to E. X was entrusted to Ms. D, but one month later she asked to be moved to another resource because she did not get along with another youth living in the house. X was moved to Ms. F, and she confirms being very well there. [ 19 ] X has no specific issues. The reason of her placement is the situation of her mother.

Doing so, the DYP considers that as soon as the mother will be ready to resume the care of her daughter, there will be no obstacle for a reintegration to be started. [ 20 ] The mother’s collaboration fluctuated a lot during the last years. On a few occasions, she was seen intoxicated and suicidal. She was also occasionally aggressive towards the DYP worker. She refused to come at the Court for the hearing on provisional measures in April 2022. [ 21 ] Since that date, the mother is doing better. She is more open to collaborate and the DYP hopes that it will continue like that.

The mother still has her alcohol consumption issues to address. She is thinking about attending a therapy. The mother confirms that she looks to integrate [Organism A] before having her daughter back at home. To do so, she made an appointment with the Social Services to start the process. [ 22 ] The mother is concerned by Y’s school attendance issues. If Y is reintegrated under her care, she commits to make sure that she will go to school regularly and she will address the issue with the school staff.

On this topic, the mother mentioned that when she had been made aware that her daughter refused to go to school because she was bullied, she asked the school to intervene, but nothing was done. She also asked for her daughter to receive home schooling, but the school refused. [ 23 ] The father had no contact with his daughters since 2018. He was present at the last hearing and requested to have his girls at home. He was invited to communicate with the DYP after the court hearing, but he did not. Analysis [ 24 ] The situation of the youth continues to be endangered.

In 2015, the Court had entrusted the children to the grandparents until they reach their majority and for sure, the Court entrusted the situation of the children to the DYP for the execution of the decision. [ 25 ] Today, in 2022, the evidence shows that since 2019, there were various difficulties at the grandparents’ place: alcohol consumption, school attendance for Y, lack of food, lack of medical follow-up.

All that information had been provided to the DYP and the evidence clearly shows that no proper intervention had been done. [ 26 ] In such situation, the Court had no other choice than to declare that the rights of the children had been wronged by the DYP. The DYP had the responsibility to ensure the safety of the children. The foster family where they had been entrusted was not able to ensure their safety so the DYP had the responsibility to intervene right away, but he did not. [ 27 ] It is not the responsibility of children placed to foster family under YPA, to look for a safe place to spend the night.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the application;

[ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on […], 2007, are still endangered; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the rights of the children were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection in the situation of the 2 adolescents and by the school in the situation of Y; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS X to a foster family with a gradual reintegration with her mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youths, the parents and the grandmother Ms. C, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother and Ms.

C remain sober when in contact with the youth; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES: [ 38 ] BLAMES the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a copy of this decision be notified to the Director of Youth Protection personally; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the youth Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: August 9, 2022