2018 QCCQ 15371, 2018 QCCQ 15371

Protection de la jeunesse — 185979 2018 QCCQ 15371 JH5272 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] No. 525-41-025511-122 DATE: January 29, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X (born on [...], 2006) - and - Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A Petitioner - and - A B Parents–respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] (section 95, Youth Protection Act ) [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an application for review of an order rendered by the X’s placement with a foster family lasted only a few days.

On July 21, 2016, he was again placed in a rehabilitation centre. During his short stay with the family, he was uncontrollable. He tried to strangle the dog. He was dangerous. [ 2 ] The child’s behaviour problems are persisting.

It was quickly noted that he still needs a therapeutic environment. [ 3 ] Moreover, the Director contended that the child runs a serious risk of being subjected to acts of a sexual nature because his father has committed such acts and because he may have had access to pornographic material. [ 4 ] The father pleaded guilty to charges of possessing and making child pornography and touching a child under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose. The victim was reportedly the two-year-old daughter of his former spouse. [ 5 ] Appropriately, the Director verified whether X had also been subjected to such acts.

Further to an assessment conducted by the Director and the [police department A], it must be said that there is no evidence of inappropriate acts by Mr. B toward his son. [ 6 ] In addition, the medical examination of X, conducted in September 2016, did not reveal anything abnormal. The possibility that the child may have had access to pornographic material is only a hypothesis. [ 7 ] Mr. B contended that, since he did not engage in reprehensible behaviour toward his son, the child does not run the risk of being abused.

The Court cannot rely on that analysis alone, as it would have to ignore the ill-treatment to which X was subjected during his placement and, above all, the disastrous consequences that still persist to this day.

[ 8 ] In 2012, the child was sexually assaulted in his group home. Since then, he has received specialized services from the Centre A on two occasions. He took

part in the [program A] and received assistance from the Lyall Pavilion team at Douglas Hospital. [ 9 ] Despite everything, the child continues to display highly worrisome sexualized behaviour. This has become a way for X to initiate contact with others. [ 10 ] His behaviour makes him an ideal prey.

He remains constantly at risk of being abused again. [ 11 ] Therefore, the undersigned considers that X runs a serious risk of being sexually abused because of his father’s way of life and because of the after-effects of the abuse he suffered in an institutional environment. [ 12 ] As for the measures proposed by the Director, it must be said that the means available are limited. [ 13 ] The assessment of the trauma (D-16) strongly emphasized the need to keep X in his living unit, namely, the Crossroads home.

However, in the fall of 2017, it was learned that a change of placement environment was required, since the child was dangerous for the other residents. [ 14 ] That situation clearly shows the dilemma faced by the Director, who has to reconcile X’s inescapable need for stability with the necessity of preventing him from victimising others. [ 15 ] The child currently lives at the C home, where he is the youngest resident. He is supervised by an educator 24 hours a day.

Is this a solution, or just a temporary restraint measure? [ 16 ] Psychologist Lewis (D-16) and psychiatrist Fathalli (D-18) noted that X’s sexualized behaviour is a direct consequence of the trauma he experienced and of his attachment problems. Those aspects absolutely must be addressed if acceptable life plans are to be developed for the child, and to ensure he does not become trapped in a dynamic of assault. [ 17 ] In short, the child’s need for stability is becoming vital. The appropriate resource and conditions must be found, on a permanent basis.

Hence, the last measure proposed by the Director (a one-year placement in a rehabilitation centre) seems insufficient. [ 18 ] The undersigned is reassured by the nuanced understanding of the caseworker ([social worker 1]) and by the strict, respectful and stabilizing measures implemented at the C home.

To enable X to start healing, things must continue in that direction for more than one year. [ 19 ] Although the prospect of living with a foster family is appealing, this remains a very long-term objective; it is directly related to the success of the current measures. [ 20 ] In closing, the Court does not believe that X would benefit in any way from having contact with his mother. In the past years, Ms. A was never able to ensure any sort of continuity for her son. Rather, she fed into his insecurity. [ 21 ] The father is currently being detained until December 2019.

X must be allowed to maintain his bond with his father, within a well-defined framework, if only to let him know what to expect in the coming years. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] NOTES that X’s security and development are still in danger, additionally under

section 38( e )(2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A for the execution of these measures: [ 24 ] ORDERS that X be placed in a rehabilitation centre; [ 25 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that the child will continue to live at the C group home; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the child be kept in his current living unit; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that [social worker 1] remain the caseworker assigned to the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS that contact between the father and the child take place according to modalities determined by the Director, at a frequency to be agreed upon between the father, the Director and X; that frequency will not exceed once every two months; [ 29 ] SUSPENDS contact between the mother and the child; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority and ENTRUSTS it to Director, who will make the decisions concerning health care, the choice of school, and authorizations for extracurricular activities and travel; [ 31 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his parents; [ 32 ] THE WHOLE until December 30, 2019; [ 33 ] ORDERS the execution of this order by any peace officer, if necessary.

Signed in Town A on February 21, 2018 _______________________________ PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. Mtre. Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the DYP Mtre. Luce James Attorney for the child Mtre. Marc Morin Attorney for the father Hearing dates: September 19, 2016, February 1, 2017, June 1, 2017, October 17, 2017 and January 29, 2018 [1] WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).