2022 QCCQ 14366, 2022 QCCQ 14366

Protection de la jeunesse — 229061 2022 QCCQ 14366 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002672-217 DATE: August 10, 2022 (written judgment rendered on September 14, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant 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 October 19, 2021, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the youth to a foster family, until August 31, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her parents and asks that she be entrusted to a kinship foster family, namely Ms.

C, until April 7, 2023. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Michaël Pereira. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] The youth is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On July 8, 2005 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 3 months old. The parents had alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. The mother admitted having been physically abusive toward the child. The mother was suicidal. The parents did not have their own house. They were living with the father’s family and the crying of the baby brought some negative comments from the family members which affected the mother. The baby was entrusted to her maternal aunt in another village.

The parents confirmed their intention to collaborate and to work hard to resume the care of their child. The Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family for 5 months.

The Court also ordered that services be provided to the family for one year, that the mother be medically and psychologically evaluated and that the parents participate to a marital counselling and parental course. [ 7 ] On March 29, 2006 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family as provisional measures. [ 8 ] On May 9, 2006 , the Court revised the situation and entrusted the child for 6 months to a foster family.

The Court also ordered that the mother benefit from a regular follow-up with a psychiatrist. [ 9 ] On May 1, 2007 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family as provisional measures and recommended that the mother be evaluated by a psychologist regarding her parental capacities.

[ 10 ] On June 19, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. After being entrusted to a foster family, X came back living with her parents at the beginning of 2007. In April 2007, an argument occurred between the mother and the father’s family where the couple was still living. The mother would like to move to Town A with her son and to leave her daughter under the father’s care. The family disagreed with the mother’s plan. The child was entrusted to a foster home as immediate protective measures. The psychological evaluation of the mother was still not done yet.

The DYP asked for a long-term placement, but considering the evidence provided about the foster family, the Court refused the long-term placement and entrusted the child to a foster family only for 3 months. The Court also recommended that the mother be assessed by a psychologist. [ 11 ] On September 19, 2007 , the Court revised the situation. The mother had moved to Town A with her son. She still displayed anger management issues. The father was still living on Town B with his mother and did not have the capacity to take care of the child.

The Court noted that the services were not provided adequately to the parents, but considering the bonds created between X and her foster parents, the Court ordered a placement until majority. [ 12 ] On September 23, 2019 , the psychologist Dr. Beltempo, assessed X. His mandate was to make recommendations regarding her depression symptoms. Dr. Beltempo recommended: 1. For purposes of helping X to process and understand her depression as well as social anxiety, we refer X to Ms. Dominique Paradis, psychologist, for psychotherapy . We note that progress may be slow before we expect any significant changes.

We should also respect her pace. Moreover, I would suggest that Ms. Dominique Paradis, psychologist, assess X cognitively (WISC) because it may explain problems related to her poor school attendance and performance. I am curious whether she has any sort of learning disabilities. This could not be assessed in this psychological assessment, but I would encourage Ms. Paradis to do so. 2. Preferably, we aim these efforts of intervention in the early stages using supportive and active listening techniques rather than structure approaches. 3.

Eventually, she would need a skill-building approach such as dialectical behaviour therapy ; for example, the Mindfulness and then Emotional Regulation modules . 4. X would need to be referred to Dr. Larose, child psychiatrist, along with this assessment report and background information. 5. With assistance of the Social Workers, X needs to be examined by a dentist not only for her baby front tooth, but also for an overall dental examination. [ 13 ] On June 29, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures, but X was AWOL, so a warrant was issued.

On July 9, 2020 , the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre as provisional measures. [ 14 ] On August 27, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. X was now 15 years old. The evidence showed that she displayed behavioural issues and put her at risk. She was pregnant. She did not receive a regular psychological follow-up due to a lack of service in her community. She went through 20 different foster families. The father did not collaborate with the DYP. The mother still displayed alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues.

The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until January 31, 2021, and authorized a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it.

The Court also ordered that she receive medical services, notably a psychiatric and psychological follow-up, that she attend school, that she receive services from an external educator, withdrawn the attributes of parental authority from the parents and forbid the contacts between X and D, the whole until August 31, 2021. [ 15 ] On May 18, 2021 , the Court entrusted the youth to the kinship foster family of C and E as a provisional measure. [ 16 ] On October 19, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. As ordered, X had been entrusted to the [Unit A] where she addressed her issues and she did very well.

In October 2020, following a visit at her aunt’s place in Town C, once in Town D for her way back, she ran away. She went to her violent boyfriend’s place despite the prohibition of contacts. Due to her absence for more than 14 days, the rehabilitation centre decided to give her place to another youth. She had been seriously beaten by him. The medical staff recommended not to make her travel back to Town E due to her stress which could have a negative impact on her baby. Doing so, the DYP started the immediate integration under her aunt’s care in Town C.

On [...], 2021, X gave birth to her daughter and following that the relation with her aunt degenerated. X was entrusted to her paternal aunt, Ms. C, where she had been fostered for 12 years. Considering that she had left this place because of sexual gesture from her cousin, a safety plan was put in place and X confirmed being very well there. X started to receive services from an external educator in April 2021. She works on her drugs consumption, her parental abilities, healthy love relationship and her behavioural issues. She continued her follow-up with the child psychiatrist.

The situation of the mother remained the same, but she recently moved to Town C to be closer to her daughter and to avoid consuming alcohol. Everything was going well at the foster family until August 2021, when the couple got separated. X went back to her other aunt, Ms. E. X started school in August 2021, and her baby is attending daycare. The Court entrusted the youth to a foster family until August 31, 2022.

Facts and Analysis [ 17 ] Considering the absence of contestation, the parties file a draft agreement. [ 18 ] In this draft agreement, the parties admit the facts that justify maintaining the declaration of endangerment. The facts are the following: 3.1. Since the last Court hearing the situation of the parents remained the same; 3.2. The mother still displays alcohol consumption issues; 3.3. The mother is still a victim of conjugal violence with her partner; 3.4. The relationship between the youth and the mother is still conflictual and tainted with emotional rejection;

3.5. The father came back from detention in March 2022 and had regular contact with the youth; 3.6. The youth is currently entrusted under the care of her aunt, Mrs. C, with whom she has a great bond; 3.7. The youth was assigned with an external educator to help her with her life as a teenager and single mother; 3.8. The youth was able to improve her overall situation, but still gets angry easily and has a tendency of wanting to give up on her baby; 3.9. In fact, due to the instability she lived in the past measures, the youth had some difficulties taking care of her child and became overwhelmed; 3.10.

The youth has a history of wanting to get back with the father of her child despite the prohibition of contacts between them and the previous violence; 3.11. The youth went through multiple traumatic events in the past and needs the structured and safe environment of a foster family to evolve positively; 3.12. The youth did not show up to her scheduled meetings to work on an autonomy plan and finally stated that she was not ready; 3.13. The youth still needs the support of the Youth Protection to gain autonomy in preparation for her majority. [ 19 ] The parties agree with the following measures: 5.1.

That the youth be entrusted to a kinship foster family, namely Ms. C; 5.2. That the youth be supported by the Director of Youth Protection into a boarding plan, a program geared to develop skills and autonomy in order to prepare her for her majority; 5.3. That the youth not come into contact with Mr. D and Ms. F, except regarding Ms. F according to the modalities imposed by the Director of Youth Protection; 5.4. That the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; 5.5. That the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform her of the current situation; 5.6. That the youth receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; 5.7. That the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; 5.8.

That the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the Director of Youth Protection or any other person designated by the Director of Youth Protection namely regarding, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; 5.9. That a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; 5.10.

That the situation of the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; The whole until: April 7, 2023. [ 20 ] After verifying that the content of the draft agreement had been clearly explained to the mother and that the consent had been given freely, the Court declares to agree with the measures and accepts to ratify it. [ 21 ] Also, considering the consent of the parties, the Court grants the attributes of parental authority specifically to Ms.

C. [ 22 ] The Court noted in the revision report that X would have been interested to receive a child-psychiatrist follow-up, but that had not been possible due to a lack of resources and to Covid-19 restrictions. The Court will order the DYP to verify if X still has such desire and if so, to provide her with such service.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 25 ] RATIFIES the draft agreement; [ 26 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following measures and ORDERS the parties to comply with those: • That the youth be entrusted to a kinship foster family, namely Ms. C; • That the youth be supported by the Director of Youth Protection into a boarding plan, a program geared to develop skills and autonomy in order to prepare her for her majority;

• That the youth not come into contact with Mr. D and Ms. F, except regarding Ms. F according to the modalities imposed by the Director of Youth Protection; • That the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; • That the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform her of the current situation; • That the youth receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; • That the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; • That the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the Director of Youth Protection or any other person designated by the Director of Youth Protection namely regarding, school, extracurricular activities, travelling and passport; • That a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; • That the situation of the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; The whole until: April 7, 2023. [ 27 ] GRANTS the attributes of parental authority specifically to Ms.

C; [ 28 ] ORDERS, if X wants to have a child-psychiatrist follow-up, that the Director of Youth Protection provide her with such service; [ 29 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, to attach to this judgment a copy of the draft agreement to form an integrant part hereof, and to attach such copy of the judgment to be subsequently delivered. __________________________________ 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 Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 10, 2022