2022 QCCQ 14532, 2022 QCCQ 14532

Protection de la jeunesse — 229011 2022 QCCQ 14532 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001960-159 DATE: August 10, 2022 (written judgment rendered on October 3, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] & [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicants 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 and prolong a decision rendered on March 15, 2021, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre, namely the Group Home A, no longer than April 30, 2021, and to Mr. C and Ms.

D, as a foster family, starting no later than April 30, 2021, the whole until June 30, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and recommends entrusting her to a foster family, namely Mr. C and Mrs. D, until her majority, namely [...], 2031. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served, the parents are absent. The mother is represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures.

The Court proceeds in the father’s absence [ 4 ] The child is 8 and a half years old. She is present and represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She is in agreement with the recommended measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On January 8, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and maintain the child with her parents with aid, counselling and assistance. On February 16, 2016, those measures were prolonged until April 2016. [ 6 ] On April 11, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 2 and a half years old.

The DYP is involved in the family’s situation since February 2014. The parents have alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. They could be highly intoxicated in the presence of their children. The parents recognize their issues, but never maintain effort to resolve them.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and ordered that the child remain with her parents with the help of an external educator until the end of January 2017. [ 7 ] On July 28, 2016 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family on provisional measures. [ 8 ] On September 15, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The DYP had to take many protective measures since the last decision, because the mother was heavily intoxicated or nowhere to be found. The father was detained most of this period. The child is developing well since her emergency placement.

The mother is ambivalent regarding her willingness to attend a treatment centre. Both parents have good parental capacities when sober. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, but authorized the mother to attend Center A Mother and Child Program with X.

[ 9 ] On May 8, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. X was 3 years old and she started to show some signs of anxiety, she could be controlling and come into crisis. She is very attached to her parents. During home visits X witnessed consumption, conjugal violence and police interventions. The contacts were decreased because of that and the child reacted strongly. Since the previous order, X was entrusted to 3 different foster families. On April 11, 2017, X was entrusted to her mother who was admitted to Center A.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, but authorized the mother to attend Center A Mother and Child Program with X and authorized a reintegration following strict conditions. [ 10 ] On March 27, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was at Center A until the end of October 2017, but her situation remained fragile. The bonds between the child and the parents are still very strong. The child is fostered by the paternal grandmother, where the father will go to live.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and order a reintegration with one of the parents as soon as possible, the whole until February 28, 2019. [ 11 ] On January 30, 2019 , the evidence reveals that the mother attend Center A another time and complete the adult program. Unfortunately, soon after her return in the community, she was found intoxicated in the presence of X. Each parent succeeds in having their own house, but they lived together in the father’s house. The mother started working at the school.

She was clear that the father has no right to consume in the house nor to come back intoxicated in the house. She agreed to live at her own place to be sure to have her children with her (X and her oldest son, Y). The mother was not always available to benefit from her visit with X, and the child is missing her mother a lot. A request was made for a psychological assessment, as the DYP has concern regarding a possible attachment disorder. X was not entrusted anymore to her paternal grandmother, she was at the specialized foster family. As no foster family was found in Town A, the DYP found one down south.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until June 30, 2019. [ 12 ] On June 5, 2019 , the situation was revised again. X still had strong bonds with her parents and her brother Y and wanted to live with them. She was entrusted back to her parents at the beginning of April 2019. Since the last hearing, the parents remained together and continued to display alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. Numerous events of consumption were reported since the last Court decision. Despite that, the parents exercised daily contacts and the child witnessed this consumption.

A foster family was found in Town B and the Court ordered that the contacts occurred in Town B rather than at the parents’ place, to avoid the risk for the child to witness consumption and violence again. The Court noted that since her birth, the child was moved 81 times from one caregiver to another one. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, ordered that she receive health care services, notably a psychological assessment, the whole until June 30, 2020. [ 13 ] On December 12, 2019 , Dr. Beltempo signed the psychological assessment of the child. The psychologist spoke with the foster father, Mr.

E who shared his concerns about X. The foster father also said that he will continue to foster X at least until September 2020, when he and his spouse go back to school down south. The psychologist concluded that X “showed numerous signs of attachment disorder, mostly the anxious type.” Dr. Beltempo recommended: • I strongly recommend reparative attachment counselling on a week basis. • We went to Social Services Office and found Mr. F, Social Worker, who does family counselling with young children . The Examiner introduced him to E and, they set up an appointment for weekly follow-ups.

We strongly recommend that the Foster Family and X be provided this support service with a particular focus on: 1. Sleep problems – fear of the dark. 2. Attentional problems, i.e. sibling rivalry. 3. How to set limits with the child who has an attachment disorder. 4. Abandonment issues and emotional regulation. [ 14 ] On June 2, 2020 , the evidence revealed that the parents’ situation remained the same since the last Court order. The parents did not take steps to address their issues. X and her brother were entrusted to the father’s cousin in Town B and they were doing well there.

The Court entrusted X specifically to Ms. G, ordered the DYP to prepare a life plan for the child, ordered that services of an external educator be provided and that the recommendations set out by Dr. Beltempo be implemented, specifically that she benefits of a reparative attachment counselling on a weekly basis and family counselling for young children involving the foster mother. [ 15 ] On August 10, 2020 , the Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre on provisional measures. [ 16 ] On March 15, 2021 , the Court revised again the situation. After the last decision, X stayed at Ms.

G’s house in Town C, where she is since February 26, 2020. She continued to display several behaviour disturbances due to her attachment disorder. Starting in June 2020, Ms. G started to complain about X behaviours. X was going regularly to her parent’s place without being authorized and it frequently happened that the parents were intoxicated. In August 2020, she gave up. Under provisional measures, X was entrusted to the Group Home A and she adapted well. X is still very attached to her parents, but each time they consume, she has the feeling that they prioritize their own needs and she feels rejected again.

She suffers from an important attachment disorder which makes her test the limits, and also the love she receives. She has trust issues and doing so she could be jealous of the attention that an adult would give to another child. The child went through 85 different placements and the DYP recognized that the last foster family was not supported as she was supposed to be. As she was the last option as a foster family, the DYP alleged that the only solution left is a placement in a rehabilitation centre, the whole for a long period of time.

As the Court disagreed with such assertion, a provisional measure was rendered to give time to the DYP to seriously look for a foster family. At the continuation of the hearing, the DYP confirmed that a foster family was founded, a family that already fostered the child and that was forced to renounce to foster her because the DYP did not facilitate the transfer of school when that foster family had to move. Dr. Beltempo testified and was very happy to hear that this specific foster family had raised their hand again.

The Court entrusted the child under the care of this specific foster family, declared that the rights of the child were wronged and ordered a long list of measures to ensure the success of the placement, the whole until June 30, 2022.

Facts [ 17 ] By the voice of her lawyer, the mother recognizes that the situation remained mostly the same since the last decision. The parents still display alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. [ 18 ] The process of reintegration ordered in the last decision had been properly followed. The child and the foster parents received the services ordered and the reintegration went very well. [ 19 ] The foster parents testified about the integration that went very well. They express how happy they are to have X back under their care and the beautiful complicity between her and their daughter.

X is an entire part of their family, and they speak about that with a lot of emotion. [ 20 ] The foster parents confirmed that they receive the services and the explanation as it had been ordered. They consider that they do not need help anymore, but they are fully aware that they can ask for help at any time if they need. [ 21 ] They will have to move in the future for their studies and for their work.

They are fully aware that they can move with X and will make sure that no administrative obstacle will prevent them from keeping her with them. [ 22 ] The foster parents have a good relation with the parents and they make sure to meet with them as often as they can, for example when they transit by the airport of Town C, they notify the parents. Analysis [ 23 ] The situation of the child continues to be endangered. Even if the impacts of the traumas that she lived are less visible because she is well surrounded, the traumas are still there.

She will need to be properly supported at all the steps of her development. [ 24 ] The parents did not make any steps to improve their way of life, and there is no possibility to foresee a reintegration of the child under their care. [ 25 ] The child deserves to finally benefit from stability, and this foster family is the most suitable plan for her. They are able to fulfil all her needs and to give her a loving and warm environment. [ 26 ] The Court still has difficulty to understand how it had been possible that she was prevented from being entrusted to them much before, for a simple administrative reason.

But we have to look to the future and to be grateful that, by a coincidence, their paths crossed. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, namely Mr. C and Ms.

D; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X receive health care and services required by her situation when needed; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court. [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 38 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to obtain the collaboration from the Director of Youth Protection B and to determine the frequency and intensity of the follow-up done in Town D, as long as the foster family lives on Coast A; [ 39 ] WITHDRAWS the attributes of parental authorities from the parents and GRANTS it to the foster parents regarding the health, the schooling and extracurricular activities, the travelling, a passport, a social insurance number and the driving licence; [ 40 ] REMINDS the foster family that they are welcome to ask for professional support at any time if they have any concern about the child’s well-being and behaviour; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE until the age of majority, namely [...], 2031.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Dates of hearing: August 10, 2022