2019 QCCQ 16060, 2019 QCCQ 16060

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910383 2019 QCCQ 16060 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002031-166 DATE: April 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on October 10, 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 person by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 3, 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 a foster family until October 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the youth in her foster family and asks to entrust her to a rehabilitation centre, with a possible reintegration in a foster family, if the situation allows it, until April 30, 2020. Position of the parties [ 3 ] Mr. B, the interested party, is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel.

He ignores most of the allegations and would like to follow the desire of X. [ 4 ] X, who is now 15 and a half years old, 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 4, 2016 , under a provisional measure, the Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre. [ 6 ] On September 15, 2016 , the situation was submitted to the Court. When she was only 4 and a half years old, her mother committed suicide.

Before her death, the mother has difficulty to exercise her parental obligations, as she had an alcohol consumption issue. X was frequently under the care of her aunt, but she did not respect the rules imposed by her care giver. On July 11, 2016, she was found trying to hang herself while being highly intoxicated. Later she was found with a 32-year-old man. The day after as she displayed suicidal ideation, she was hospitalized and medevaced to Town A. The same day, B, who always pretended to be the father and who act as is for X, decided to live to Town B instead of staying with her.

She was still hospitalized at the time of the hearing. The consumption issue of Mr. B as an impact on X, but he denies it and refuses to address his problem. [ 7 ] During the school year 2015-2016, X did not go to school regularly. The rehabilitation centre staff describe her as very manipulative, with a lot of anger and unable to control herself. They say she can be physically aggressive and verbally abusive toward them.

In August 2016, she was evaluated by a child psychiatrist who recommended a more structured setting, as she was at high risk of running away and considering her aggressiveness and her anti-social behaviours. The Court declared that her security and development were endangered [1] , entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, recommended that she receive counselling, ordered health care and a psychological assessment, the whole until March 15, 2017. [ 8 ] In September 2016 , she was evaluated by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist. His conclusions and recommendations are the

following: X remains a high risk on several levels; being a sexual victim; being involved in delinquent activities and being involved in suicide risk. For these reasons, I believe that she needs continued supervision and structure . At least, protective measures are able to support her during these crisis. Hopefully one day, the interventions will get through to her. I would certainly recommend a psychiatric assessment referral to Dr. Lucie Nadeau , child psychiatrist as soon as possible. X has seen a physician on August 24 th , a day prior.

However, X should be referred for a psychiatric assessment given the repeated pattern of suicide attempts and ideations. Also, it would be important that X be referred to the child psychologist in the A Health Centre in an attempt to slowly build a relationship in which she could eventually use art therapy methods to express her deeper underlying pain. I would highly recommend that she be followed up in Psychology and conjointly be seen by Dr.

Nadeau, child psychiatrist, to assess if medication is indicated. [ 9 ] On May 8, 2017 , after provisional hearings where the Court maintained the status quo, the situation was submitted to the Court for revision. The evidence shows that since the last order, she stays at the Girls’ Unit in Town C, she made great improvements and she is now able to respect the rules. She had few home visits at her maternal aunt and it went well. Despite those improvements, X remains fragile and in February 2017, she ran away for four days. Mr.

B situation was still the same: he did not collaborate with the services, he was not involved in his daughter's life and did not provide for her. The DYP was planning to entrust X to Ms. C, but she has four children, so it’s important to do the integration very progressively. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until August 15, 2017, with integration with C if possible.

The Court also ordered a psychiatric assessment, a psychological follow-up and medication if prescribed. [ 10 ] On August 15, 2017 , the DYP asks the Court to prolong the placement in a rehabilitation centre for another year with the objective to start integration with the interested party. X agreed with those recommendations, but the father would like to have his daughter immediately. The evidence reveals that X still has behavioural issues as aggressiveness, suicidal ideation and running away. The contact with the father was not regular, and the DYP worker was not able to meet with him.

X pointed a gun to the staff saying that she would kill herself if she has no place to stay. She did not accept to meet with the psychiatrist. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre with reintegration with Mr. B if possible. The Court also ordered a psychiatric evaluation and a psychological follow-up, the whole until August 31, 2018. [ 11 ] On October 3, 2018 , the Court revised the decision in the absence of the adolescent who refused to come at the court house. The father is also absent being nowhere to be found for the last two previous days.

X is now 15 years old, and she is at the rehabilitation centre since 2016. She ran away many times and she consumed cannabis and alcohol. In June 2018, she was transferred in a closed unit in Town B, because of her behavioural issues. She was aggressive, but she improved. [ 12 ] Since August 2017, she had three visits at C’s place and it went well. She also visited her father. Mr. B still has alcohol consumption issues, but he is very concerned by his daughter’s well-being. His collaboration with the DYP is unstable, but he still really wants to have his daughter back with him. On her side, C is very supportive.

On September 6, 2018, X was entrusted to Ms. D. As, she has no tutor since her mother’s death, the Court applied

section 180 C.c.Q. The Court entrusted X to a foster family and order that she go to school on a regular basis, the whole until October 31, 2019. [ 13 ] On March 13, 2019 , the Court was seized with a provisional hearing and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. Facts [ 14 ] Few days after the last decision, X’s behaviour deteriorated. In October, Ms. D informed the DYP that X does not sleep at home. She stays outside late and comes at home during the day to sleep and doing so, she does not go to school. [ 15 ] On October 29, she came intoxicated.

The day after, she admits that her situation is not getting better and she asks by herself to go back to the Group Home. [ 16 ] On beginning of November, the DYP worker tries to speak with the father, but he is highly intoxicated and aggressive. Few days after, while sober, he admits his mistakes. [ 17 ] On November 9, X gets into a fight with a friend with a lot of violence. She threatened the other youth with a knife, she ran away and was found eight days after.

She immediately asks to go back to the Group Home, but the DYP entrusted her to a new foster family. [ 18 ] On December 12, X witnessed a violent event between the father and his son. On January 21, the DYP worker found her at her father’s place. She admits living there and not going to school. The father asks the DYP worker to leave. [ 19 ] X testifies that she had issues with her foster brother.

She did not denounce anything, she just decides to leave the house and to go back to her father's place. [ 20 ] Following that, X continues to live at her father’s place and refuses all the foster families the DYP suggest to her. She also refuses to meet with the worker. She consumes cannabis and still does not go to school. [ 21 ] On January 31 in the morning, while at the airport, X calls the DYP worker to ask her to come to see her. She said being tired and she leaves for Town C at her aunt’s place.

The DYP worker gave her an appointment at her office in the afternoon, but X never came and was nowhere to be found. [ 22 ] One month later, X stole a vehicle and during the police chase, she finished stuck in a snow bank. The father intervened and engaged himself to supervise her adequately. Few minutes later, she was alone at home while the father was working. The same day, the DYP worker made a request for a place at the rehabilitation centre, but no place was available before three days. X agreed to entrust the rehabilitation centre and engaged herself to take the plane when required.

[ 23 ] When it was time for boarding, X was not collaborative and the father either. The DYP worker gave them ten minutes to get ready, but when she came back, X and her father had left. The day after, X finally accepted on her own to go. [ 24 ] After three days at the rehabilitation centre, X calls the DYP worker and tells her that she understands, she will change and she would like to go back home. She was maintained there, following the provisional order rendered on March 13, 2018. [ 25 ] Since she is at the rehabilitation centre, she improves her behaviour.

She participates well to the program, she respects the rules and she goes to school regularly. Only one event was reported when she asked authorization to visit her grandmother who lives in Town C and went instead with friends and came back intoxicated. X totally recognizes her drugs and alcohol consumption issues. [ 26 ] According to the DYP worker, X is facing many traumas and actually she ignores if X properly grieved the loss of her mother, and also ignores the impact of the violence and the consumption on her development. [ 27 ] X asks to be transferred in a rehabilitation centre in Town B.

The decision will be made by [Center B]. [ 28 ] The collaboration with the father continues to be very difficult. [ 29 ] For now, no foster family is identified. The DYP planned to work on this aspect. Analysis [ 30 ] The situation of X remains obviously endangered. She put herself at risk since the last order. An urgent intervention was necessary. [ 31 ] The Court has many concerns regarding the DYP's follow-up in this file.

Despite questions asked during the hearing, it’s remained very difficult to understand why the DYP did not intervene with more intensity in this situation. [ 32 ] X is known for her behavioural issues (violence, suicidal ideation, etc.) for many years. Her father is not collaborative. How can it be possible for the DYP to ignore that a youth entrusted to a foster family and her situation entrusted to the DYP, leave her foster family’s house to go back to her father’s place for at least one month?

When an adolescent followed by the DYP calls the worker to let her know that she plans to take a plane while she should be in foster family, why the worker does not go immediately to the airport to stop her? When a youth asks twice to go back to the Group Home, why the DYP continues to try foster families after foster families? Why the DYP wait six months before filing a revision application in such a serious situation? How many times, X put her at risk during those six months? [ 33 ] But there is more. As mentioned in the revision report, the DYP is involved in her life since 2013.

She was entrusted to many foster families and was in and out from Group Home/rehabilitation centre. It’s obvious that those placements did not work! The objective of a placement is to learn tools to be able to function adequately. If it’s always necessary to return an adolescent to the Group Home to stop bad behaviour, maybe the problem is elsewhere. [ 34 ] It’s for this reason that medical evaluation was recommended and ordered. It’s precisely to know more about X’s needs and to know the best way to intervene with her.

But those follow-ups and those evaluations are still not done, even if it’s ordered since 2016, following a psychological evaluation produced by the DYP herself. [ 35 ] The report writer says: “Usually her poor collaboration is a reflection of her not doing well in her life.” Once it’s said, it would be time to do something. [ 36 ] During that time, X continues to grow with her traumas and nothing is evaluated, we totally ignore the impact of those traumas on her development.

She is avoiding her emotion with the consumption of drugs and alcohol and as it was easy to anticipate, she developed an addiction problem. [ 37 ] The Court will maintain X at the rehabilitation and will order that she receive the evaluations she deserves in a timely manner.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X , born on [...], 2003, are still endangered; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a possible reintegration in a foster family, if the situation allows it; [ 41 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre in Town B; [ 42 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection will take the necessary steps to transfer her in Town B; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a child psychiatric assessment of the adolescent be performed within the next two months; [ 44 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide to the child psychiatrist a copy of Dr.

Beltempo’s evaluation (September 2016), and if requested by the child psychiatrist, a copy of X’s medical and schooling files; [ 45 ] ORDERS that recommendations set out by the child psychiatrist be followed, including any other evaluation he or she could recommend; [ 46 ] ORDERS that any recommendations regarding the adapted structure to foster X be followed;

[ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the entire X’s medical and schooling files; [ 48 ] Until the recommendations from the child psychiatrist be known, ORDERS that the adolescent actively participate to a psychological follow-up; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES the psychologist to have access to Dr. Beltempo’s evaluation and if psychological follow-up is still recommended by the child psychiatrist, access to the child psychiatrist’s evaluation is also authorized; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and Mr. B report, in person, at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy on a daily basis; [ 53 ] ORDERS that Mr. B remain sober and without any violent behaviours in the presence of the adolescent; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequencies and the duration of the contacts between Mr.

B and the adolescent are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 55 ] DECLARES the Director of Youth Protection as tutor for X, according to

section 180 of the Civil Code ; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the adolescent and Mr.

B; [ 57 ] 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; [ 58 ] 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; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 60 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 61 ] THE WHOLE until April 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Caroline Daniel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Caroline Jennis, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: April 16, 2019