2019 QCCQ 14834, 2019 QCCQ 14834

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911143 2019 QCCQ 14834 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002036-165 DATE: September 10, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 6, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, unknown address Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] 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 review a decision rendered on October 2, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2006. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted him to his father. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the adolescent to his father and recommends that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. Considering she was duly served and considering the best interest of the adolescent, the Court proceeds in her absence. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered, but he contests the measures. He asks his son to be placed under his care. [ 5 ] X, who is 13 years old, is present and represented by Me Sinnet.

He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered, but as his father, he contests the measures and asks to remain at home. History of the situation [ 6 ] On September 9, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 10 years old. He was aggressive towards his younger brother, disrespectful with his parents and he misbehaved at school. The DYP was involved since 2013. On July 31, 2016, the father became violent towards his two children while both parents were intoxicated.

A few days after, the father was arrested and released with conditions not to be in the presence of the children. The DYP entrusted the children in a foster family in Town A. Upon his arrival, X became aggressive and the foster family immediately gave up on him. The mother wished to have the children and agreed to live somewhere else, to avoid the contact with the father. Since the placement, the mother reduced her alcohol consumption and the father stopped. Since March 2017, X was prescribed with Concerta and benefitted from a psychological follow-up.

Other events of consumption occurred and the children generally ran away when their parents were intoxicated. The Court declares the security and development of the child endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family until July 9, 2017, with supervised contacts for the father, and health care services. [ 7 ] On December 8, 2016 , under immediate protective measures, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 8 ] On December 14, 2016 , under provisional measures, X was maintained in a rehabilitation centre.

[ 9 ] On January 25, 2017 , the Court was seized with the revision. The evidence revealed that X’s behaviour degenerated despite the services offered and two foster families gave up in three months. The parents’ situation remained the same. The mother is less involved and continue to drink to avoid her personal issues. According to Dr. Beltempo, X reproduce the violence he saw at his parents’ place. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre for one year with health services. [ 10 ] On February 2, 2018 , a provisional order was rendered and the status quo was maintained.

It was maintained again on February 20, 2018 . [ 11 ] On April 18, 2018 , the evidence shows that X was in a Group Home since January 2017. He was 11 years old. The staff noted an improvement, but his behaviour remained very problematic when he came back from home visits to his mother’s place. She still had alcohol consumption issues, and no stable place to stay. The father was detained from February to August 2017, and was supposed to stay in a halfway house in Town B until August 2018, but get released in April 2018. The parents collaborated well and the DYP agreed with a reintegration at the father’s place.

The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family or with the father as soon as the situation allows for it, the whole until October 30, 2018. [ 12 ] On October 2, 2018 , the evidence revealed that the parents improved their situation. The mother reduced her alcohol consumption. The father came back on June 6, 2018, has a job and his own house. X also improved a lot. Since August 27, 2018, he lived with his father and he was doing well. The father asked help regarding his parental skills, as he was now a single father. The contacts between X and his mother were irregular.

X did not appreciate his father’s new spouse who drinks while his father does not drink anymore. The Court entrusted X under his father’s care until July 24, 2019. [ 13 ] On June 28, and July 4, 2019 , under provisional measures, X was maintained with his father. [ 14 ] On July 24, 2019 , the DYP asked the Court to entrust X to a rehabilitation centre, but considering the absence of evidence of serious risk of prejudice, the undersigned maintained X with his father and authorized him to travel with his father to Newfoundland, to visit his paternal grandfather and other paternal family members.

Facts [ 15 ] In November 2018, X’s situation degenerated and he stopped going to school. The DYP worker made attempts to meet with him every week, but X did not show up. [ 16 ] With the father’s consent, it was agreed to have X evaluated by a psychologist and to follow the recommendation as the school was not able to offer particular adaptation. [ 17 ] The psychological evaluation was made on January 5, 2019, and Dr.

Beltempo recommended: - That X attend support group at A Center to focus on his own issues of personal anger; - That the father and his son participate in the father-son program with A Center to work on their relation (communication and bonding); - That X benefit from a pediatric follow-up in regards of the medication; - That X could have access to a shadow in school; - That services of an external educator be provided at home. [ 18 ] On January 9, 2019, the DYP worker had to intervene twice because X was on the grocery roof. The father was called.

He admitted being overwhelmed with X’s behaviours. [ 19 ] By the middle of March, the situation continues to be challenging. X’s little brother considers the situation at home very difficult. X had a lot of difficulty to express himself, and the father was scared to lose patience. The DYP worker gave a copy of Dr. Beltempo’s report to the father and told him that the follow-up would start the week after. [ 20 ] In May, the father said again being overwhelmed. X broke the inside of the garage with a hockey stick. He was entrusted to his aunt.

The school informed the DYP worker that he was at school only ten days since the beginning of the school year. According to his teacher, X had the capacity to have between 80 and 90% if he comes at school. [ 21 ] In June, X disclosed that his father bit him. A few days after, the father expressed being very concerned for his son, and wanted to try again. He thought that it could help if X would have more access to his mother. [ 22 ] The DYP worker describes the father and son relation as follows: “With the past events with his father, X feels more reticent to give a full trust in his dad.

We can see that X feels unloved by his dad. The youth mentioned to his younger brother being jealous because Mr. B loved him more than he does for X. We have a child that reacts to his father and wants to test his limits.” [ 23 ] The DYP worker, assigned in this file for one week, maintains the request for a placement in a rehabilitation centre because, since the last order, the father asked many times for help and expressed being overwhelmed a few times. [ 24 ] On his side, she mentioned that X would benefit from rehabilitation services as he needs structure and to learn to express and to deal with his emotions.

She knows that he ever went to the rehabilitation centre, but she ignores when, for how long and what he worked on. [ 25 ] The DYP worker also notes that the collaboration from the father was less good than before. She is not sure that he is still ready to learn some tools.

[ 26 ] Questioned about the follow-up provided, the DYP worker confirms that interventions were made when a crisis occurred, but she does not know what kind of long-term services were provided. She supposed that the previous worker collaborated with the school for his educational needs. [ 27 ] She also ignores why X considers himself unloved by his father. Also questioned about the vacation in Newfoundland, the DYP worker ignores how it went as she did not meet the father when he came back to have information. [ 28 ] Regarding the mother, the DYP worker has less information as she is not involved in X’s life.

According to her knowledge, the mother would still have alcohol consumption issues and no stable place to stay. She works at Town D. For the DYP worker, the mother would benefit from a follow-up with the Social Services and from a psychological evaluation. [ 29 ] The father testifies and explains that a few situations were difficult to deal with during the year, but he is convinced that X missed his family from his mother’s side. After the hearing on July 4, X made a crisis because he wanted to go to see his sister in Town A, when the plane stopped there on his way to go back home after the court.

The DYP worker disagreed with this visit, but considering the intensity of the crisis, finished accepting. The father said that this visit was very beneficial for X. [ 30 ] X also saw his mother at the hearing on July 24, and he appreciated this contact a lot. The father saw drastic changes in his son’s behaviour since those two contacts with family members.

The father asked that the contact be organized since a long time and he was happy to see that, as he thought, X needed it. [ 31 ] According to the father, when he asked the DYP worker to organize contacts between X and the maternal family members who live in Town A, there is always excuses and excuses. [ 32 ] The father explained that X participated to a new program at school which is made to develop interest for working purposes and X likes it. [ 33 ] The father testifies about the vacation in Newfoundland. He and his two sons appreciated a lot this trip and their stay with paternal family members.

The relation between the two brothers improved a lot during that time, and he did not need to intervene to discipline them. [ 34 ] Since they are back, X is going to school every day and he is doing very well at home. [ 35 ] The father receives services from A Center on a monthly basis.

Analysis [ 36 ] The DYP alleged that as soon as one month after the last order (October 2018), the situation of X degenerated a lot which justifies today to entrust him in a rehabilitation centre. [ 37 ] Despite all those difficulties, a provisional order was requested in July because the file was not ready for the revision and the DYP asked, at that time, to maintain X under his father’s care which was granted by the Court. It is only two weeks after, that the DYP requested a placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 38 ] It is obvious that the situation was difficult at home during the last year.

But it is also obvious that it improved a lot since the last few months and the situation does not require that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 39 ] As the father said, X is very attached to both sides of his family members and needs the physical contacts with them. It was his rights to have contacts with his mother, sister and cousin. The organization of the physical contacts is part of the aid, counselling and assistance which was ordered by the Court. [ 40 ] The situation is getting much better now, and services are offered at school to answer X’s needs.

The DYP worker is not aware of the situation and ignores what was done by the father to improve the situation. [ 41 ] Despite the facts that the DYP was against the trip to Newfoundland, no contacts were made with the father, at his arrival, to have information on what’s happened. [ 42 ] The Court had the evidence that the situation remained endangered, but also has the evidence that the father is totally able to take good care of his son and that he is fully aware of his needs.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the application; [ 44 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2006, are still in danger; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the youth under his father’s care; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, his mother and the extended family are determined and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help from Social Services in regards to their parental capacities and personal issues; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that the youth receive the medical and schooling services according to Dr.

Beltempo’s evaluation; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide, aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his family; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy on a daily basis; [ 53 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 54 ] THE WHOLE until the end of September 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 10, 2019