2021 QCCQ 17306, 2021 QCCQ 17306

Protection de la jeunesse — 2110071 2021 QCCQ 17306 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002095-179 DATE: November 9, 2021 (written judgment rendered on February 7, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born [...], 2004 [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 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 May 25, 2021, regarding the youth X, born on [...], 2004. At that date the Court ordered that the youth remain with the mother with other measures until May 31, 2022. [ 2 ] X has siblings, Y, aged 14 and Z, aged 11.

The Court is also seized with their situations. [ 3 ] The DYP submits to the Court that the situation of X remain endangered and recommended that the youth be entrusted to a foster family, with a gradual reintegration with their parents as soon as possible, until August 2, 2022.

Position of the Parties [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the mother is absent and not represented The Court proceed in her absence. [ 5 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent, but represented by Me Michaël Pereira who was able to obtain his position on the allegations, but not regarding the measures considering the difficulty to communicate with the father. The father admits most of the alleged facts. [ 6 ] The youth is 17 years old. She is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune who acts on a legal mandate considering that the youth refused to communicate with her and hung up the phone.

After hearing the evidence, Me Neptune submitted that the situation of her client did not benefit from a proper follow-up from the DYP and that nothing was done to gain her collaboration. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On June 14, 2017 , the Court was seized with the situation of Y and her sister X. At that time, the DYP was involved in the family because the children were victims of physical abuse from the parents. Doing so, voluntary measures were signed and the children remained with the parents with services.

On March 8, 2017, a new report was received to the fact that Y was injured and the parents admitted using violence toward her. Also Y had serious academic delay. The children sometimes struggle to manage their emotions and have important crisis at school. Since the beginning of the intervention, the parents succeed in reducing the conjugal violence and their substance abuse. The main difficulty remained the discipline.

The Court declared that the security and development were endangered [1] and ordered that the children remain with their parents with aid, counselling and assistance until August 16, 2018. [ 8 ] On May 22, 2018 , the situation was reviewed. The parties filed a draft agreement in which they recognized that the children were exposed to unreasonable educational methods. They also admitted that X suffered from violence since the beginning of 2018, and that she was scared of her mother. The parents still had a violent conjugal relationship, and the children witnessed their conflicts.

The parents did not seek help for their personal issues, but received help from their family members and collaborated well. The Court maintained the children with their parents until May 31, 2019.

[ 9 ] On May 24, 2019 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and maintained the children with their parents with aid, counselling and assistance. [ 10 ] On July 5, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for extension in the file of X and Y, with motions for protection for Z and the child traditionally adopted by the parents. Considering the allegation to the fact that the traditional adoption was not completed, the biological parents were served and present. The Court refused to proceed with a common hearing for obvious reasons and because of a lack of time, postponed the hearing.

Until the next date of court, the children remained with their parents. [ 11 ] On September 5, 2019 , for the same reason, the Court had to postpone the hearing again. The measures were maintained. [ 12 ] On May 19, 2020 , the Court rendered a decision on the application for protection. On November 21, 2019, the Court started the hearing in the file of the baby entrusted to the parents, C. With the consent of each party, the evidence heard in the file of the baby was dropped in the file of X, Y and Z.

The family was known from the DYP since a few years due to the parents’ alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. An improvement of the situation was noted after the baby’s arrival in the family in February 2018. [ 13 ] The DYP worker performed very frequent unattended visits at home, and the parents started a follow-up with the Social Services. They started the process to entrust a therapy centre, but due to Covid-19, their admission had been delayed. A few extended family members already confirmed being available to take care of the children during the therapy.

The parents wanted to increase the frequency of the meetings with the external educator as it is very helpful for them, and asked for the presence of a translator. The Court maintained her under her parents’ care, ordered the parents to continue their follow-up with the Social Services and that the family receive services from an external educator at least once every 2 weeks with an interpreter. [ 14 ] On May 25, 2021 , the Court revise the situation of the 3 children and the evidence showed that the family’s situation changed a lot since the last hearing. The parents got separated in March 2021.

The father moved to Town A, and he did not give any news. Before that, a few events of consumption occurred, but the mother was able to remain sober after the separation. She took care of the children alone since the separation. The family was doing well when the services of an external educator was provided, but degenerated when the service was not available between February and March 2021. [ 15 ] X is known to be very helpful at home with her brother and sisters, she loves to cook and to sew parkas.

At school, she is attending an individual non-academic pathway called Pre-work Training Program as the regular courses are not suitable for her. Facts [ 16 ] On July 27, 2021, the DYP had to intervene at Ms. A’s place. She was seen heavily intoxicated in the street. Her neighbours helped her to enter in her house. Once there, she screamed and woke up X and Z. Y was not there that night. The day after, the mother was met.

She did not remember anything, but confirmed that she drank too much and would like to stop, to avoid her children to see her in this state. [ 17 ] On August 30, 2021, the DYP was made aware that X missed a lot of school since the beginning of the school year, and that Ms. A would be bootlegging in the community and would sell cocaine at school. Also, the DYP learned that Ms. A would regularly be intoxicated and that nobody was present to babysit the children. Moreover, Y disclosed that the day before she had been physically abused by her mother who punched her many times in the chest.

She had difficulty to breathe. [ 18 ] The DYP worker present at the hearing ignores if the evaluation of this report is completed and if so, what is the conclusion. She also ignores if criminal charges were raised. She did not ask any question about that to her colleagues from the evaluation team nor to the police officers. [ 19 ] The same day, the DYP worker went to school and met with the school principal. She learned that X had to steal food to bring back home as the mother does not cook. X and Y confirms that they regularly come at school hungry. The school vice-principal is Mr. B’s sister.

She had told him about the situation at home, but he did not intervene in any way. [ 20 ] Ms. A was also met the same day. She confirmed that she had lost control when she had found drugs in her daughter’s pocket, but she did not give any more details. She became aggressive and asked repeatedly that she would like to keep her children at home. When questioned about a safety net to ensure the children security, she was not able to answer. The DYP took immediate protective measures and entrusted the children under Ms. A’s parents. Since that time, Ms. A refuses to communicate with the DYP delegates.

Doing so, no physical contacts were organized. She only saw her children through Facetime. [ 21 ] As of today, the mother’s situation remains the same. She drinks regularly, particularly during the month of October which reminds her a lot of bad memories. She refused to seek help saying not feeling strong enough to address her issues. [ 22 ] The DYP worker also ignores the type, and the frequency of the follow-up made in this situation. Doing so, the Court suspended the hearing to give her time to make some verification. She came back and confirms that the family benefitted from a weekly follow-up. [ 23 ] Mr.

B is still not involved in the children’s lives. He is still living in Town A where he has a lot of family members. He is working at the Pub, at Y’s Hope, at the fire department and at the FM radio. He was always known as a hard worker. The DYP has a lot of difficulty to reach him. After numerous attempts, the DYP worker was able to speak with him on September 2, 2021, to inform him about the immediate protective measures and about the emergency hearing.

He mentioned that he was aware of the situation of physical abuse, but did not attend the hearing and gave no news since then. [ 24 ] X is still attending the Pre-work Training Program at her school. This give her the opportunity to do internship in various working environment. She attends school regularly. She is also a member of the Canadian Rangers, and she enjoys the outdoor activities. [ 25 ] X is pregnant. She verbalized being scared and not knowing what to do. Her mother was very supportive and discussed with her

about the options. She finally decided to give birth and to give the child through traditional adoption to a relative known for not consuming. As before, she continues to have difficulty to manage her emotions, and her collaboration with the DYP is variable. [ 26 ] X displays problematic behaviour since the beginning of the placement. According to the previous foster mother, X lies and has emotional outbursts. She has been recently entrusted to another foster family, and the situation is more positive in such environment.

The DYP worker plans to discuss with the foster mother about her openness to keep X and possibly her baby under her roof after she had reached her majority. The date of delivery is unknown. Analysis [ 27 ] The last decision was rendered very recently (May 2021) and since that time the situation of the family degenerated drastically. [ 28 ] The parents’ separation did not help the situation and that triggered the mother’s difficulties. The father, on his side, totally abandoned his family and his responsibilities.

The portrait of the family is very dark contrary to the portrait they gave in the past when they showed a lot of motivation to improve their situation. [ 29 ] Those new events maintained the children in a situation in which their security and development continue to be endangered. [ 30 ] In the situation of the 3 children, the placement is necessary, in foster family for the 2 girls and in a rehabilitation centre for Z. Y is in agreement with such placement. [ 31 ] The position of X is unknown as she totally refuses to collaborate with the DYP.

But the Court shares the youth’s lawyer when she says that it is the DYP’s responsibility to gain the youth’s collaboration. The youth is the object of the decision of the Court and doing so, in contradiction of the situation of a parent who refused to receive service, the DYP has no other choice than to provide the service to the youth. [ 32 ] Moreover, considering that the services have to be adapted to each specific situation, the situation of the child has to be well known.

Knowing that this decision will probably be the last one in the situation of X, the DYP is reminded that it is more than urgent to provide her all the services that she deserves. [ 33 ] Regarding Z, the Court understands his desire to be entrusted to a foster family, but the evidence shows that he need to receive rehabilitation services due to his violent behaviour. [ 34 ] The Court notes the default to respect the provisional order and that 11 days were necessary for this decision to be executed.

The Court is well aware of the lack of resources at the DYP office, and understands the facts that the grandfather has to work to avoid other children to be prevented from receiving education. That being said, during that time, the rights of the child were wronged, he did not receive the services he needs and his security was at risk.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the rights of Z were wronged by the DYP due to the default to respect the provisional measures rendered on September 15, 2021; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS X to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a gradual reintegration under the care of their parents, as soon as the situation allows it; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children are endangered; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the children; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the children and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their personal issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the family on a regular basis ; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a close follow-up be provided to X to prepare her for her adult life; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 47 ] THE WHOLE until August 2, 2022.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the children Me Michaël Pereira, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 9, 2021