2019 QCCQ 19640, 2019 QCCQ 19640

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910352 2019 QCCQ 19640 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000582-145 DATE: April 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 23, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [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, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 revise a decision rendered on September 5, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to the foster family of C, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until [...], 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his parents and asks to entrust her to a foster family until February 29, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are absent and not represented. Considering they were duly served and they decided not to come to the Court house, the Court will proceed in their absence. [ 4 ] X is almost 16 years old.

She is present and represented by Me Jennis. She admits most of the allegations, and she agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 5 ] On August 7, 2014 , on a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted X under Ms. D identified as her mother’s sister. [ 6 ] On September 3, 2014 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. X is the biological daughter of E. She was adopted by her grandmother A and her grandfather B. The adoptive parents are not together anymore. A had a stroke and she now lives at the elders’ house in Town A. She is inapt to take any decision.

B did not want to be involved in X’s life and entrusted her, in 2012, to her sister (biological mother) E. At this place, X has to take care of the young children and to do the chores. Doing so, she could not go to school. She started smoking. E and her boyfriend have alcohol and conjugal violence issues. The children are unattended at home, and the caregivers are not able to provide enough food for them.

The Court declared that the security and development of X were endangered [1] and entrusted her under her sister’s care (biological aunt), D with the services of an external educator the whole until December 19, 2014. [ 7 ] On December 3, 2014 , on a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 8 ] On December 19, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. E and her spouse were still struggling with alcohol consumption issues. During a conjugal violence event, E assaulted her spouse with an axe and he had to be medevaced.

X was suffering a lot from the situation and developed serious behavioural issues: not going to school regularly, disrespecting the authority, drugs consumption and physical violence towards her teacher and other youth at school, and bullying others. She had been physically abused by her foster mother, D and the boyfriend of this latter tries to sexually abuse her. Ms. D never received the help of an external educator as it was ordered and X was given too much responsibility for her young age. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until August 21,

2015, and ordered that a psychological evaluation of X was performed. [ 9 ] On March 30, 2015 , the psychological report was made and the psychologist concluded and recommended: We have here a child who shows many sings of oppositional defiance and who can sometimes be aggressive, doesn’t respect the rules and is essentially acting out.

This psychological assessment data shows that these problems can be tied into several problems in the last few years; particularly the 3 years spent at D’s home in the chaos and witnessing of violence and alcohol intoxication of the adults and being the caretaker (parentified) in the home would have significantly impacted her. It is not clear if she has been sexually abused, she denied having been abused. She stated that if it ever happened she would likely tell her older sister Y. We have in addition, the significant protector in the family, her mother who had a stroke and had to be replaced.

The impact of her mother’s absence and the worry over her deteriorating health are weighing down emotionally on this girl who is very in touch with a feeling of sadness. She denied any suicidal ideation. Overall her defense against these strong feelings of sadness is to act out aggressively and angrily towards authority figures. We suspect that these 2 significant changes in her surroundings and family would have impacted on her sufficiently negatively to create testing of limits with all authority figures.

We must note that prior to her placement at her older sister’s house, she already started showing oppositional behaviors at the age of 6 at school. She is reportedly smoking marijuana although she denied it in the interview. She has a strong character with some oppositional behaviors. I believe she is at a crossroads right now in that she is still open to interventions and has a pathos about her that can be motivation for internal change.

I recommend that she stay in placement for the remaining 9 months where she can receive individual support to address the grieving issues as well as the limits setting problems (oppositional). She needs to understand the link between the sadness she feels deep down and how she acts out. Notwithstanding limited resources I would recommend that she could see her Primary Worker on an individual basis or a counselor from Social Services to support her and address those issues. She is a fun loving child, and can participate in a counselling alliance.

However one must be able to cut through the crust of defensive oppositionality and defiance. We feel that using as art therapy methods and specific behavioral strategies (at the Specialized Foster Home) would curb her aggressiveness and support her in the deeper underlying feeling of sadness towards the changes that have occurred and the traumas that have occurred so early in her life. [ 10 ] On August 20, 2015 , according to the Group Home, X made important improvements and would be ready to entrust a foster family.

But as no foster family was found or are still under investigation, the Court recommends taking the required time to make sure the pairing will be good. X needed a safe and well-structured environment. Ms. E and her spouse were still not able to offer that to X. The Court maintained the child at the Specialized Foster Family until November 16, 2015, and ordered reintegration in a foster family until February 19, 2016.

The Court also ordered that the services of an external educator be provided to the foster family and ordered the DYP to clarify a life plan. [ 11 ] On February 18, 2016 , the evidence reveals that X had been entrusted to Ms. F who lived in Town A. The situation had ups and downs at home and, moreover, Ms. F decided to move down South. X wanted to stay up North. No [origin A] foster families are available, but the Court asked the DYP to make new research. The Court maintained X in a foster family until the end of June 2016.

At that date, a foster family has to be found. [ 12 ] On March 23, 2016 , on a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted X to a reception centre. [ 13 ] On April 14, 2016 , the Court revised the situation and the evidence revealed that shortly after the last decision was rendered, the situation degenerated a lot. X made a pack of suicide, ran away, made important crisis, had to be removed from the foster family and assaulted a social worker. She was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and was able to calm her down. She identified a foster family who was evaluated and confirmed being ready to foster X.

She should be able to entrust this one shortly. The Court ordered a placement in a rehabilitation centre with reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, with the help of an external educator, the whole until the end of January 2017. [ 14 ] On January 24, 2017 , the placement at the rehabilitation centre was very difficult and X displayed serious behavioural issues. Her situation started getting better as soon as she entrusted a foster family. She is now doing well, she respects the rules and she goes to school regularly. Ms. E did not improve preventing her from taking care of X.

The Court maintained X to a foster family with the help of an external educator, the whole until August 18, 2017. [ 15 ] On August 18, 2017 , the Court was supposed to hear the revision, but X was nowhere to be found. Answering a question of the Court, the Social worker admitted that X never reported herself to the DYP as it had been ordered eight months before. The Court maintained the status quo. [ 16 ] On October 12, 2017 , the evidence showed that she had been entrusted to Ms. G in Town B. Because of her behaviours, the foster family gave up. Then she was entrusted to Ms.

H, but her behaviour continued to deteriorate, so Ms. H also gave up. In August she was temporary entrusted under her sister’s care D, until being entrusted to Ms. I and J still in Town B. She said being well there. The Court entrusted her in a foster family until September 30, 2018, with the services of an external educator. [ 17 ] On September 5, 2018 , the Court revised the decision. The situation went well until December 2017, when she started disrespecting the rules. The DYP transferred her to a new foster family, it went well and they are available to take care of her on a long term basis.

The adoptive mother, who is close to X, is still hospitalized in a long-term installation in Town A. The father is still not involved. In December 2017, when the situation degenerated, she had been recently sexually abused by a man who was murdered not long after. On May 19, 2018, the father assaulted X’s two younger sister. The Court entrusted X to Ms. C until she reaches her majority, granted the attributes of parental authority to Ms.

C and ordered the service of an external educator. [ 18 ] On January 14, 2019 , a provisional hearing took place and the Court maintained the status quo which was prolonged on February 28, 2019 . Facts [ 19 ] A few weeks after the last decision, the foster family informed the DYP about her concerns. She noted that X has ups and

downs in her humour like she was bipolar. She did not respect the rules at home. The foster family mother was very concerned. [ 20 ] In October 2018, the foster family found a letter of suicide addressed to her mother. [ 21 ] On November 16, 2018, X met with her doctor regarding potential mental health issues. [ 22 ] In November 2018, she asked to go in Town A to visit her mother, but as no escort was available to go with her, the visit was cancelled. She was very disappointed. [ 23 ] At the beginning of December, X did not come back at C’s place. She decided to stay at K. As Ms.

C did not want to have her back because of her behavioural issues and as Ms. K agreed to take care of her, X was entrusted to her. [ 24 ] In December, a home visit in Town A was organized, and she stays at her sister’s place. Analysis [ 25 ] The situation of X remains endangered. [ 26 ] Considering her position and her interest, the Court agrees with the recommended measures. Considering the instability during the last years, it’s actually impossible to consider a majority placement. Her situation has to be closely monitored.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, are still endangered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. K, if she accredited as such; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of their current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the youth continue to attend school regularly; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the youth and the foster family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS them to the Director of Youth Protection, more specifically regarding health, education, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the parents and the foster family; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until February 29, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the youth Date of hearing: April 17, 2019