2019 QCCQ 14830, 2019 QCCQ 14830

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911139 2019 QCCQ 14830 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-000694-049 DATE: November 20, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 23, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at […] in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to extend a decision rendered on October 2, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the youth to a foster family until October 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow the return of the youth to her parents and that the placement has to be prolonged until October 31, 2020.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are present and represented by Me Tommasel. They recognize that the security and development of their child are still endangered, but they are opposed to the measures. [ 4 ] X, who is now 15 and a half years old, is present and represented by Me Migué. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she asks to be entrusted to her parents. History of the situation [ 5 ] On March 18, 2004 , X’s situation was submitted to the Court. At that time, the family situation had been known for a few months by the DYP.

At birth, the DYP proposed voluntary measures, which were accepted by the parents. As a result, X was entrusted to a foster family. The older children were already the object of a decision from the Court because of neglect from the parents’ part. It was uncertain if the situation of neglect was due to a lack of parental capabilities, the intellectual disability of the parents, or any other difficulty. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family for a period of 17 months with a possible reintegration during the last 3 months.

The Court also recommended that the parents have access to their daughter every day, encouraged the parents to participate in a psychological evaluation, and ordered that the parents participate to sessions regarding parenting skills once a week. [ 6 ] On February 28, 2006 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained in a foster family. [ 7 ] On May 2, 2006 , the Court reviewed the situation. The children were placed back under their parent’s care, and the situation of neglect repeated itself (malnutrition, health care negligence, lack of hygiene, developmental delays).

Considering the awareness of the parents about their children’s situation, the Court entrusted them the children. [ 8 ] On January 5, 2007 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a foster family. On February 9, 2007 , another provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained, and extended again on March 30, 2007 .

[ 9 ] On April 24, 2007 , a provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained once again. The parents were authorized to produce expertise for the hearing under

section 95 of the YPA. [ 10 ] In July 2007 , Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem produced expertise [2] on the behalf of the parents and described the mother as follows: En aucun moment de notre rencontre et de nos entrevues avons-nous senti chez Madame une manifestation ou un élan d’amour ou d’attachement envers les enfants Y et X. Quand nous allons activement à la pêche pour trouver de telles manifestations, Madame ne dit pas un mot sur ses enfants mais nous dit ni plus ni moins qu’elle ne laissera pas gagner les intervenants de la Youth Protection et que c’est une lutte à finir.

Nous tentons à d’autres reprises de susciter chez elle des propos qui montreraient amour ou attachement. Par exemple, en l’invitant à nous parler de Y, Madame donne une liste de défauts et de comportement répréhensibles. Pas un mot de tendresse, de reconnaissance, de sollicitude. Il est clair pour nous que Madame n’a pas investi ces deux enfants mais par leur entremise, veut donner une leçon aux intervenants. [ 11 ] On September 12, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. X was 3 years old. In November 2005, X and her siblings were placed back under their parent’s care.

The evidence revealed that X and her sister Y were still the victims of physical abuse and neglected in terms of health care and basic needs (black eyes, scratches, bruises all over their body, loss of weight, etc.). According to the medical team of the Montreal Children's Hospital, the injuries on the children's bodies cannot be the result of an accident. A few days before the hearing, the father was arrested for assault on the mother. He had suicidal verbalizations. The parents said that they had separated since that event. The Court notes that X has been placed in many foster homes; more than seven.

She had been in a new one since April 2007, and it seemed to go well, but it was the same one as her sister Y, who was spanked by them, and where there was conjugal violence. The Court concluded that the parents did not make any changes, refused the services provided to them, and did not recognize their issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until she reaches her majority and ordered, among others, what follows: [72] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that it be assessed whether a change of foster homes would be appropriate; […] [76] ORDERS that the clerk of the Court serve this decision to the Commission de la protection des droits de la jeunesse et de la personne, and STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the Commission regularly check on the follow-up to be made by the Director of Youth Protection in this file; [ 12 ] On October 3, 2016 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a rehabilitation center. [ 13 ] On November 29, 2016 , the Court reviewed the situation.

X was 12 and a half years old. The evidence revealed that she displayed behavioural issues such as not respecting authority, not coming back home at night, consuming alcohol, and not attending school. On September 19, 2016, the foster family gave up and she was entrusted to another one. Two days later, the new foster family also gave up and X was entrusted to a Group Home. The Court noted that X was the victim of serious neglect, rejection, and physical abuse during her childhood, and that she went through multiple placements. An attachment disorder and developmental delays are suspected.

The parents asked that their child come back home, but they did nothing to improve their situation and there was no bond between them and X. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation center. The Court ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed with specific consideration for the bond between the parents and the child, the whole until August 31, 2017. [ 14 ] On September 7, 2017 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was maintained at the rehabilitation center. [ 15 ] On October 11, 2017 , the evidence revealed that X had been staying at the Town A Group Home since the last order.

She generally improved her behaviour despite a few running away incidents. She still needed rehabilitation services. The parents were not involved with the DYP services and never asked for visits or for news. The Court noted that the short period of placement requested by the DYP created hope in the children’s mind, which was not in her best interest, given that she was acting out as a result. The Court reminded that Justice Bonin, in 2008, asked the CDPDJ [3] to be involved in the follow-up.

The Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation center with a foster family reintegration as soon as the situation allowed for it. [ 16 ] On October 2, 2018 , the Court reviewed the decision. The parents’ situation remained the same. The youth greatly improved her situation, enough to be able to be entrusted to a foster family on June 8, 2018. She is fostered by her sister C and her spouse D. The adolescent is doing well and the foster family is available on a long-term basis if needed. The parents had not contacted her at all during the previous year.

As the foster family is in Town B, X could see her parents and siblings frequently. The Court entrusted the youth to a foster family and recommended that it be the one of C and her spouse D, until October 31, 2019. [ 17 ] On October 23, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained. Facts [ 18 ] As early as November 2018, one month after the last decision, X told the DYP that she was hesitant to stay at her sister’s place because she had conflicts with her foster parents. The DYP worker met with them and they admitted that X did not always listen to them.

The situation improved a lot and remained stable for the following months. [ 19 ] Sadly, in April, the DYP was informed by the school that X disclosed that she was having a hard time at home. X did not always sleep at home and went to her parents’ place a few days a week. X expressed the desire to be fostered in Town C. [ 20 ] When her sister C gave up, another sister, E, agreed to foster her. A few days later, X disclosed having been slapped in the face by D (C’s boyfriend) and having witnessed conjugal violence in their house.

She said she was very well in her new foster family. [ 21 ] Unfortunately, one month later, at the beginning of July 2019, she disclosed a sexual assault from E’s spouse’s son, who lives in the same house. X was removed from this foster family and was temporarily placed under her parents’ care.

[ 22 ] X had not been reachable to speak about the report before August as she was on the land, camping with her family. [ 23 ] At the beginning of August, a new report was received for sexual assault from her brother on two occasions in the family house, and by another man, still in the family house. [ 24 ] During the same week, her sister Y committed suicide and X stayed at her parents’ place for the funeral. [ 25 ] According to X’s desire, a foster family was found in Town C: Ms. F, where X had been fostered in the past. X was happy to be entrusted there.

She went to Town C around mid-August 2019. [ 26 ] X’s placement at her parents’ place was decided by the DYP because no other foster family was available at that moment. Because of that, X stayed at their place, with the consent of every one, for more than one month. [ 27 ] The DYP worker has only been assigned to X’s file since mid-August 2019. He read the most recent notes, but not the entire file. He does not know that a psychological evaluation was performed in 2016. Consequently, he also ignores the recommendations.

He is conscious that she was fostered by many different foster families and that those moves caused a lot of instability in X’s life, but he has no knowledge of the number of foster families. [ 28 ] In his complementary report [4] , he wrote that the file was opened in 2013, but the Court informed him that the file was opened almost 10 years before that, in 2004, and that X had been entrusted in a foster family at birth.

The family’s situation was already known by the DYP a few months prior to her birth. [ 29 ] When questioned about the services provided to help X through the many foster family transfers, the DYP worker explained that he made verification with the school in Town C, who confirmed that a school counsellor was available. However, he adds that nothing was done to put X in contact with this person because she said that she was fine. [ 30 ] The DYP worker explains that G, X’s brother and abuser, is currently living in the parents’ house.

He knows that it was discussed that G could go and live at C’s place, if X was entrusted back to her parents, but he wants more time to evaluate the situation and to find out more about the parents’ plan. According to the information provided by the police officer, since the disclosure, G is respecting the prohibition of contact when X is in Town B. Despite that, the DYP worker considers that the risk of reoffending is high. [ 31 ] Since the last order, the parents have shown more concern regarding their daughter’s well-being. They requested that she benefit from a regular follow-up.

They are convinced that the suicide of their other daughter could have been avoided if she had received the appropriate support. They also maintained regular contacts with her by electronic way when she was in another village, speaking with her almost every day, and in person when she was in Town B. X stayed at their place for more than one month and, despite the sexual abuse which occurred while the parents were in Montreal for a medical appointment, no further report was received and no intervention was needed. [ 32 ] According to the foster mother from Town C, X is well integrated.

She is doing well at home and at school. She has a lot of friends. [ 33 ] A few days before the hearing, X said that she would like to stay in Town C while making more home visits, but she is very clear at the moment that she eventually wants to be back with her parents. The DYP worker understands her request well, and he agrees with the reintegration within a very short delay. He only wants to be sure that the plan suggested by the parents will be safe enough. [ 34 ] X is supposed to have a home visit during the week following the hearing.

The DYP worker is available, and will take advantage of this week to assess the situation. [ 35 ] Both parents testified and appeared very concerned by their daughter’s situation. They want their daughter back home immediately. They currently have six of their children living at their place, and all are missing X a lot. [ 36 ] The father insisted on the fact that G won’t be authorized to come to their place anymore as soon as X will be entrusted there. Everything was discussed with C, who completely agrees to have G at her place.

The father is confident that G will respect the prohibition, as he has been doing since the beginning. That being said, if he does not respect it, the father is prepared to call the police as soon as G would arrive at their place. [ 37 ] For the father, if he has a choice to make between X and G, he will choose X, as she is still a child and needs to be protected. G is an adult and he has to accept the consequences of his acts. [ 38 ] He is aware that his daughter went through a lot of traumas because of the negligence at home and in foster families, and because of the lack of stability she has had since birth.

For him, protecting her is important and urgent. [ 39 ] The parents accept to collaborate and ask that their daughter receive the services she needs. They are available to escort her in Montreal if needed. [ 40 ] The parents confirm that they benefit from the help of Social Services this year, but not on a regular basis. [ 41 ] The Court asked the DYP regarding the communication between the CDPDJ and the DYP, but according to his knowledge, the CDPDJ never contacted the DYP in regard to X’s file. Analysis [ 42 ] X had a very sad childhood.

She was entrusted at birth because of a situation of important neglect in the house. Since that time, she has moved from foster family to foster family.

[ 43 ] During a long period of time, her parents were not present in her life and had a very negative attitude, as previously detailed in the history of the situation. [ 44 ] Today, the parents are more involved and are concerned. It is exactly what is expected from them as parents.

Their situation and their state of mind is much more positive than it was in the past. [ 45 ] That being said, X is living with a very heavy background, a lot of traumas, and recently she suffered from other traumas, with the loss of her sister and the four sexual abuses she was the victim of, during the last year. [ 46 ] X’s situation obviously remains endangered. [ 47 ] The YPA’s objective is to put measures in place that put an end to a situation in which the child is endangered. [ 48 ] The problem in this file is the fact that certain measures taken, and the absence of certain other measures, continue to endanger the situation which was already very serious.

The shortcomings noted are the following: - The psychological evaluation from December 2016 remained without a follow-up. The DYP worker is not aware of its existence; - The failure to offer stability to the child, with numerous changes in foster families in the past, increased the traumas that she already had.

On this aspect, the Court reminds that, despite the placement until majority ordered by Justice Bonin, X was moved without the Court being seized with an application for revision, contrary to the prescription of the law and the notice produced by the CDPDJ [5] ; - The non-respect of the Court order and the prescription of

section 62.1, leaving the child at her parents place for more than two weeks without any process of reintegration at the time; - The failure to request the professional services in a situation in which it is more than necessary. The DYP worker testifies that he made sure the services of a school counsellor were available, but no more. The role of the DYP is not to make a check list of the available services. His role is to ensure that the services are offered. [ 49 ] Considering the seriousness of the situation, the Court has no hesitation to declare that the rights of the child have been wronged on many aspects, and according to

section 91, as a fine, will order corrective measures. [ 50 ] Regarding the main measures, the DYP is agreeing with the reintegration process, but asks for time to do so. As for the parents, they are ready to receive their daughter immediately and offer the Court a plan to guarantee her safety.

The evidence also reveals that they took steps to protect their daughter as soon as they were made aware of the abuses. [ 51 ] The parents demonstrate their concern, they testified honestly, and the Court trust them. [ 52 ] That being said, as the plan of the DYP for the reintegration is totally unclear, the Court will make it clear and will impose, as corrective measures, that some steps be taken during the following week, considering that X is already supposed to have a home visit. This week will be enough to work intensively with the family regarding the rules to be imposed, to the satisfaction of everyone.

In doing so, the reintegration is possible immediately. There is no reason to grant another delay in this situation. [ 53 ] Even if the reintegration is possible immediately, the Court is preoccupied by the fact that the origin of this file and X’s past is totally unknown of the DYP worker. The negligence aspect has to be worked out, but for that, the worker has to have the whole picture and history. [ 54 ] As a corrective measure, the DYP worker will have to read the entire file, including the previous decisions, and to be aware of the reasons for the different moves, including the evaluations from Dr.

Beltempo and Dr. Van Gijseghem, performed in 2006 and 2007 respectively, and also the last psychological evaluation from 2016. [ 55 ] This file has already been submitted to the CDPDJ, who was invited to follow up with the situation regularly. According to the DYP worker’s testimony, the CDPDJ did not intervene, but the Commission has to be aware of the developments since that time. Consequently, this decision will be sent to the CDPDJ.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 56 ] GRANTS the application; [ 57 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 58 ] DECLARES that the rights of the youth have been wronged by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS X under her parents’ care to the strict exclusion of G; [ 60 ] ORDERS the Youth Protection worker to meet the parents and X within the next five working days to put in place a structure to ensure her safety at home, including the rules to be respected; [ 61 ] ORDERS that an intervention plan be reached between the Director of Youth Protection, the parents, and X regarding the situation of endangerment, her safety, and her different follow-ups with professionals; [ 62 ] ORDERS that X receive all health care and services required by her situation; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the recommendations set out by Dr.

Beltempo in 2016 be followed without any delay, including any evaluation he has recommended;

[ 64 ] ORDERS that X immediately receive services from Social Services or the School counsellor following a frequency of once every two weeks regarding, among other things, the sexual abuses; [ 65 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that X receive this service regularly; [ 66 ] ORDERS the Youth Protection worker, and any other worker assigned to this file, to read all the Court decisions rendered, the first evaluation from Dr. Beltempo, and the counter-expertise from Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem made in July 2007, the evaluation from Dr.

Beltempo in 2016, and the reports made to explain the changes of foster families since her birth; [ 67 ] Considering no external educator is currently available in Town B, ORDERS the Youth Protection worker to offer a follow-up every two weeks with the parents and the youth to ensure, among other things, that X is safe and that the situation of neglect does not resurface; [ 68 ] If any evaluation is required in the psychological evaluation from 2016, AUTHORIZES the medical professionals to have access to the entire medical and schooling files of X and ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to facilitate this access; [ 69 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to financially provide for the different medical evaluations; [ 70 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 71 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from all violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 72 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their personal issues; [ 73 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the parents; [ 74 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigation in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 75 ] 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; [ 76 ] ENTRUSTS 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; [ 77 ] THE WHOLE until October 31, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Migué, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the parents Date of hearing: November 20, 2019