2018 QCCQ 20843, 2018 QCCQ 20843

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811685 2018 QCCQ 20843 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002204-185 DATE: November 20, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] & [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, currently living in [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] Father and C, residing and domiciled in [...] Interested party and PUBLIC CURATOR, having a place of affair at [...] Impleaded party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002, are in danger under sections 38 (

a) and (d) (1) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The mother is under a tutorship with the Public Curator. She is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. She is not in position to make any admission regarding the alleged facts about her daughter. [ 3 ] The father is absent, and not represented. Considering he was duly served and considering he is not involved in his daughter’s life, the Court proceeds in his absence for the best interest of X. [ 4 ] The maternal aunt, Ms. C asks to be declared as an interested party.

Considering she knows X very well, considering she feels concerned about her well-being, considering the best interest of X and considering the request is well-founded, the Court declares Ms. C as an interested party. [ 5 ] Ms. C admits all the alleged facts and agree with the measures. [ 6 ] X who is 16 years old is absent, but represented by Me Neptune. As the hearing was supposed to be heard on November 1, and has to be postponed, Me Neptune had the opportunity to meet with her on November 1. On her behalf, Me Neptune admits all the alleged facts.

She consents to be entrusted to the Group Home, but she insists on the facts that she would like to be in Town A. If she has to be entrusted at the Group Home A, she contests the measure. Facts [ 7 ] The situation of X was submitted to the Court the first time on November 1, but at that time the Court proceeds on an emergency measure. The grandmother passed away the same day. X and her aunt C, who took time to come at the court house despite the death, were very affected. [ 8 ] It was very difficult for the lawyer to communicate with X. She did not want to speak.

Her aunt was very sad about the situation, and ask to take measure immediately to protect her niece.

[ 9 ] The worker explains to the Court that X has very special needs, but the needs are not precisely known for now. We know that she could have a health condition because her mother has cognitive losses and in June 2018, she was permanently transferred to a long- term care facility in Town B because she needs specialized cares for her health conditions. We also know that X’s older brother has a medical condition, but the diagnosis in unknown.

X tends to have similar symptoms. [ 10 ] The DYP worker would like a medical evaluation to be performed, but according to her, the resource does not exist in the [Region A] and X can’t receive this evaluation in Town B because she does not come from Town B. [ 11 ] As the DYP worker does not have more information at that stage, the Court asks her to obtain more information for the next hearing and rendered the following order: Considering the situation; Considering the admissions; GRANTS the petition; ENTRUSTS X to a rehabilitation centre; ORDERS that a pedopsychiatric evaluation of X be done in the shortest delay as possible; ORDERS the DYP to offer aid, counsel and assistance to X until November 20, 2018; ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the DYP for the purpose of executing this order. [ 12 ] Before X’s mother was transferred in Town B, X was mostly living with her.

Since June, X has no place to stay and she goes from one aunt to another one. Actually nobody is assuming the parental responsibility towards X. [ 13 ] X reported being sexually abused by the spouse of one of her aunts on two occasions. The evidence is unclear on this aspect, so the DYP does not ask the Court to declare the security and development in danger for this reason. [ 14 ] As ordered by the Court at the beginning of November, steps were done to obtain an evaluation of X’s medical situation.

The DYP worker indicates that there is still an issue with the rehabilitation centre because there is no specialized Group B and X can’t entrust a specialized Group Home in Town B as she does not come from Town B. [ 15 ] The DYP worker spoke with [Program A] to ask if X could be entrusted in Town B, but they answered for now it’s not possible, but they will try when they will have the diagnostic and the recommendations from the psychologist and the psychiatrist.

They are quite sure the answer will be negative, but they will contact the Minister to ask for another option. [ 16 ] According to the DYP worker, a specialized foster family could also be an option, but it will also be in the South and without the recommendations from the specialist, we don’t know what kind of resources she needs. [ 17 ] For now, the best option, is the Group B.

This will give the opportunity to evaluate her behaviour in a well-structured environment. [ 18 ] After discussion with the aunt, the DYP agrees to transfer X from Town B to Town A, but as she should have her meeting shortly with the psychiatrist in Town B, they will wait for the meeting is done before asking to [Program A] the authorization for the transfer. analysis [ 19 ] As the mother is not able to take care of her daughter and the father is not involved in his life, X is abandoned according to

section 38 (

a) of the Youth Protection Act . Fortunately she has aunts who welcome her and who take care of her, but nobody is able to offer a long-term involvement with X. [ 20 ] X has very special needs and for now, those needs are not clearly known. The aunt C explains that she took care of X’s brother, but as she sees in X, the same pattern as in her brother, it’s too hard on her and she is very sad to see her niece having the same difficulties. Without those difficulties, C would have assumed the responsibility of X with no hesitation. [ 21 ] C is also very concerned about X’s future.

As it happened for X’s brother, she is scared that after she turns 18 and the DYP will not be involved anymore, X will have no service and the situation will deteriorate. [ 22 ] Waiting for the recommendation from the specialist, the Court also considers that the measures recommended, are in the best interest of X. It will be urgent to obtain the evaluation, and the opinion of the specialist about the most adapted resources for X. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are in danger under

section 38 (

a) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre;

[ 26 ] ORDERS that the youth take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and health services required by her situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that an evaluation of the youth from a psychologist and a child psychiatrist be performed and all recommendations be followed; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the psychologist and the child psychiatrist to have access to the relevant information from the mother’s health file; [ 30 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to mention in the request for the psychologist and the child psychiatrist, that the objective of the request is to better understand the situation of the youth, to have a diagnostic if possible, to offer suggestions to the Social Services regarding intervention, program, medication, treatment adapted to the youth, to suggest the kind of rehabilitation centre adapted to her and any other information they considered relevant for the Director of Youth Protection and the Court regarding X; [ 31 ] ORDERS that any other evaluation assessment suggested by the psychologist or the child psychiatrist be done and the recommendations be followed; [ 32 ] ORDERS that any suggestion from the psychologist or the child psychiatrist regarding the type of rehabilitation centre adapted to X be followed and the transfer be done according to the recommendations; [ 33 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority from the mother and GRANTS those to the Director of Youth Protection, namely regarding health, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 35 ] 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; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 37 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 20, 2018