2020 QCCQ 13415, 2020 QCCQ 13415

Protection de la jeunesse — 209348 2020 QCCQ 13415 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002359-195 DATE: April 14, 2020 (written judgment rendered on June 22, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ 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, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED DECISION : The text of the original decision has been corrected on August 6, 2020.

The date of hearing at the beginning of the judgment should be April 14, 2020 instead of April 14, 2019. 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 prolong a decision rendered on August 23, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration with her mother or a foster family following certain conditions, until January 30, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her mother nor to a foster family and that the placement has to be prolonged. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she disagrees with the measures.

She asks that her daughter be entrusted to her grandmother. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered, but she disagrees with the measures. She also asks to be entrusted to her grandmother. History of the situation [ 5 ] On August 15, 2019 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre. [ 6 ] On August 23, 2019 , The Court was seized with the situation of X.

The DYP was involved in X’s life since June 2018, for neglect in terms of educational needs and psychological ill-treatment caused by a reversal role. In April 2019, the DYP was informed that X was intoxicated for four days by alcohol and marijuana, feeling depressed and displaying suicidal ideation. This situation continues in May and June 2019, while the mother was also highly intoxicated and requesting to X, also intoxicated and suicidal, to babysit her little sister. X was assessed by Dr.

Beltempo, psychologist, who concludes that the situation of X will not change if she continues to live in such environment where the alcohol consumption is normalized. X was hospitalized in June and July 2019, for suicidal ideation. The grandmother, where X and her mother lived, informed that she cannot continue to have X at her place. X understood the reason of her placement, agreed with it and also agreed to see a psychologist. The Court declared that the security and development of the adolescent were endangered [1] and entrust her to a rehabilitation centre.

The Court authorized a reintegration at the mother’s place if the mother succeeds a treatment program to address her alcohol problem, or in a foster family according to the wishes of the youth and if the situation allows it. Among others, the Court also ordered: - ORDERS to the DYP to make sure that X sees a youth psychologist within the next month, and to go private services if it is not possible in public services; - ORDERS that the DYP ensure that the youth receive all health services she needs;

[ 7 ] On January 17, 2020 , the Court granted a provisional measure and maintained the status quo previously ordered. Facts [ 8 ] After the last hearing, X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre in Town C. At that place, she displayed many worrisome behaviours, mostly to follow the other youths. She was transferred to the Girl’s Unit in Town A and since then, she behaves better. [ 9 ] Once arrived in Town A, she first refused to attend school because she considered there are too many students, but she finally started to go in French as she did when she was in Town B. [ 10 ] X is very active and likes sports.

According to her, it helps her to cope with her drinking habit. The practice of sport is part of her intervention plan, and she was authorized to go to the gym. [ 11 ] According to the last decision, X was supposed to receive a psychological follow-up within a maximum of one month. While she was in Town C, the educator from the centre did not answer to the request made by the DYP B. When she was transferred in Town A a request was made to the psychologist working at the CLSC, but he refused because he does not work with youth under 16 years old. No other resource exists in the North. Also, Dr.

Beltempo was asked to see her again during his stay in Town A, but he did not have time. [ 12 ] The DYP worker explained that, in those circumstances, the manager decided to continue the weekly follow-up already started with Ms. [social worker 3], psychoeducator, and no request was sent in the private sector as ordered by the Court. [ 13 ] The DYP decided not to seize the Court with this situation considering X was followed by another professional and the DYP was satisfied with this service. [ 14 ] Ms. [social worker 3] works in Town B and offers services to X by phone.

Considering the Covid-19, this service was stooped in February 2020, and the DYP ignores when Ms. [social worker 3] will be back in the North. Doing so, X receives only services from her educator at the rehabilitation centre. [ 15 ] X came in Town B for home visits once a month. She generally went to her aunt’s place and sometimes at her grandmother’s place. Each time, the rules were explained and reminded. But almost each time, the mother drank and X always react strongly about her mother consumption.

X could consume as her mother and could also become suicidal. [ 16 ] In Town A she also has the opportunity to have visits with an aunt who lives there. The visit went well and are positive, except once in October 2019. X was made aware that her grandmother had been medevaced to Town C and she became mad to her mother who did not inform her about that. She attempted suicide by taking pills and she had to be hospitalized. [ 17 ] In December 2019, a home visit had to be cancelled because the mother was hospitalized.

A few days before, the grandmother had kicked out the mother from the house because she was too intoxicated and the mother finished at the hospital for a few days. [ 18 ] The DYP recommend that X be maintained at the rehabilitation centre. According to the DYP worker, X would be ready to start a reintegration in a foster family, but as for now, no foster family had been identified. When one is found, it will be important to be sure that X and the mother are satisfied with this family to be sure that the integration will be a success.

The DYP worker also has concern about an eventual integration in a foster family in Town B as for her, every problematic situation happened in Town B. [ 19 ] She would be ready for integration because since January, after the last suicidal attempt, X is doing much better, her behaviour has improved, and she works hard on her issues and express her emotions more properly. The plan was to process with integration in May 2020, but as for now, no foster family was found.

In these circumstances, the DYP worker recommends that she stay at the rehabilitation centre. [ 20 ] For the DYP worker, the grandmother is not an option because the mother lives there despite the fact that she has her own house, and she has a too bad influence on X. The DYP worker ignores why the mother lives at her mother’s place. Moreover, the DYP’s goal is to entrust back X to her mother, not to her grandmother.

She is also scared that as before, X had the responsibility to take care of her little sister. [ 21 ] In the actual context (Covid-19), the process of reintegration would be different as it is generally because the travelling between the Nordic villages are largely reduced. It would be necessary to obtain authorization for each travelling if we would proceed with a progressive reintegration, without having any guaranty to be able to obtain it from the Public health department. [ 22 ] The mother would like to have her daughter back in Town B at the grandmother’s place.

The mother explains having her own house which is still available for her, but she prefers to live with her mother where she can be supported and where she is well surrounded. From her testimony, the Court understands that she is conscious about her alcohol consumption issues and would like to improve her situation. Unfortunately, if she realizes the impact of her consumption on her, she seems to have difficulty to realize the impact on her children. [ 23 ] The mother express agrees to live at her place as condition for X to be back in Town B even if she would prefer to stay at her mother’s place.

Also, the alcohol is less available for one month in the North due to the coronavirus and the reduction of transportation from the South to the North. [ 24 ] That being said, the mother took some steps to address her issues. She had weekly meetings with the Social Services, and this follow-up continues at the same frequency by phone despite the Covid-19. She filled two applications to go to treatment. Her first choice was not available as the session was already started.

It is still her intention to go when the treatment centre will be reopened. [ 25 ] She also accepted to undergo a psychological assessment from Dr. Beltempo. The meeting was planned for November 7, 2019, but the mother was arrested and detained on November 6. Since November, the DYP worker never asked the mother if she wishes to

have another appointment with Dr. Beltempo. Questioned on this subject at the hearing, she clearly mentions that she is not interested anymore to be seen by a psychologist. [ 26 ] The mother confirms her willingness to work with the DYP. She recognizes her lack of collaboration and explains it by the fact that she preferred the previous worker than the actual one, but engages herself to work with her now. [ 27 ] The maternal grandmother also testifies and confirms being available to take care of X as she does with X’s younger sister.

She does not accept the alcohol consumption at her place and does not hesitate to call the police if she needs someone to be removed from her house. [ 28 ] For sure, she is an elderly person and could need some help to take care of her granddaughter currently entrusted to her. For this reason, she appreciates that the mother live at her place because she is very helpful and she is a very good mum when she is not intoxicated. [ 29 ] The grandmother also testifies being surprised that the DYP informed her that X should not have to take care of her little sister.

For the grandmother, this is not natural as in her culture, the oldest children, specifically the girls, help to take care of the youngest ones. But she accepts this new method and agrees to require helps from someone else when needed. Her other children are very close to her and they arrive as soon as she calls them. [ 30 ] Finally, X testified and express her desire to live with her grandmother. She wishes to go to school, and to be with her little sister. She is ready to respect her grandmother.

Analysis [ 31 ] Since the last decision, X is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre to receive the services she needed. She receives the help from the educator for certain services and she gets better on many aspects, but for some other services, the Court has a lot of concerns. [ 32 ] As for example, the Court has concerns regarding the supervision at the centre. X attempted to her life during her free time in Town A and no one knows where the medication she used came from.

She was specifically entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, because she was suicidal. [ 33 ] It is also because she was suicidal, that she was supposed to receive psychological service in a maximum delay of one month, but she never received this follow-up, despite the Court ordered to obtain this service in the private sector if the public sector is not able to provide it. [ 34 ] After a few weeks, as she was receiving services from a psychoeducator, the DYP considered that it is an equivalent service and it was not necessary to seize the Court. [ 35 ] The default to provide the appropriate supervision and the appropriate medical services constitutes an encroachment of rights.

The default to seize the Court in such situation is another encroachment of rights. [ 36 ] Moreover, since February 2020, the only service she received ended as the psychoeducator left and will not be back before the end of the pandemic. [ 37 ] According to the DYP worker, the youth would be ready to entrust a foster family, but no foster family was found. And when one will be found, the consent of X and her mother will be necessary to be sure that this placement will not be jeopardized. [ 38 ] Does the Court has to maintain a youth in rehabilitation until the DYP find the perfect foster family?

For sure, the answer is no. [ 39 ] The evidence shows that the grandmother is ready to foster X and it is the desire of X to go there. The grandmother is able to impose a structure and in the actual context, considering the curfew imposed in the North, it will not be too challenging to respect at least this rule. [ 40 ] The mother also diminished her consumption with this actual situation. But despite this reduction imposed by the lack of alcohol in the North, the mother has to understand all the impacts of her consumption on her daughter. X is very sad to see her mother destroying herself with alcohol.

The mother has to understand the seriousness of her addiction not only on her, but on all her family members who care for her. [ 41 ] The DYP worker request that the mother live in her own apartment to protect X if she is entrusted to her grandmother. The evidence does not sustain such request. The presence of the mother at the grandmother is manageable and is also helpful. Indeed, the mother, when sober has very good parental capacities and could help the grandmother with X’s little sister. [ 42 ] As long as the mother is sober, the Court has no reason to reduce the contacts between the mother and X.

It is important for X to be close to her family, and specifically in the actual situation of the pandemic as each family member should help each other. [ 43 ] As said before, X continues to need services and this time, those services will have to be provided adequately and according to the Court order. The corrective measures for the wronged rights will impose the DYP to provide information regarding the steps taken.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 44 ] GRANTS the application; [ 45 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 46 ] DECLARES that the rights of the adolescent have been wronged because of the non-respect of the previous Court order and the

default to provide the medical care she needed; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to her maternal grandmother as foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES frequent contacts between the youth and the mother, including sleepovers at the grandmother’s place, to the strict condition that the mother does not consume and is not under the influence of any intoxicated substances; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to perform unannounced visits at the grandmother’s place to make sure the mother respect the condition of sobriety; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the youth, the mother and the grandmother receive services from an external educator at least once a week, in person at the beginning, and AUTHORIZES that this follow-up is done by phone after, if the situation allows it; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 52 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth protection; [ 53 ] Considering the mother’s consent, ORDERS her to continue her regular follow-up with the Social Services with regard with her alcohol consumption issues; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive health care and services required by her situation, including a psychological follow-up within a maximum delay of one month; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend school on a regular basis as soon as the school will start again; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and the mother report to the Director of youth protection once a week in person or by phone; [ 57 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the adolescent and her family; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF RIGHTS: [ 59 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to assume all the expenses for the psychological follow-up if this service is provided in the private sector; [ 60 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide immediately and to assume all the expenses for a similar psychoeducational follow-up by phone or videoconference to the youth, until Ms. [social worker 3] is available to start again; [ 61 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to file, in the Court file, a written confirmation as soon as X will start to benefit from a psychological follow-up and the psychoeducational follow-up and to send a copy to the youth’s lawyer; [ 62 ] ORDERS the clerk to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 63 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: April 14, 2020