2011 QCCQ 5362, 2011 QCCQ 5362

Protection de la jeunesse — 11866 2011 QCCQ 5362 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001138-087 DATE: February 23, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A C.Y.P.C., working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled at Centre A, city B, district A Youth -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the review of a decision rendered by [Social Worker 2] concerning X born on […], 1995. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the adolescent is present and represented by her lawyer.

The mother is absent after being duly served. The Court learns the mother is unable to be in Court because she has to care for her other children during their father's absence. The applicant offered to make boarding arrangements for the children, offer that the mother ultimately declined. The Court authorizes that the hearing be held in her absence because the evidence tendered demonstrates that the mother has never played an active

part in X's life. THE FACTS [ 3 ] Before going any further, it is important to underline the reasons at the root of the implication of the D.Y.P. and of the many Court orders concerning X. [ 4 ] After being traditionally adopted by her grandmother, X was returned to her biological mother after the grandmother's death. Not only was the mother-daughter bond non-existent, the mother committed physical and verbal abuse towards X, even inviting her to commit suicide. This led to many Court decisions regarding the security and development of the child. [ 5 ] On November 28, 2008, [Social Worker 3]. declared the security and development of the adolescent endangered following sections 38(c), 38(

e) and 38(

f) of the Youth Protection Act . The adolescent was then entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year. [ 6 ] A few months later, [Social Worker 4] reviewed that judgment due to X's behaviour problems. The placement with the paternal grandmother did not work out as X had negative behaviours such as not respecting curfews, even coming back to the foster family and not going to school in the morning.

The situation led to a placement in a rehabilitation centre with possible reintegration in a foster family after six months. [ 7 ] On February 2, 2010, [Social Worker 5] reviewed and extended that decision by ordering an additional eight months with reintegration with her family as soon as the situation allowed it. The evidence then showed that X ran away from the Group home and consumed drugs and alcohol for which she recognized having a problem and that she wanted help. [ 8 ] On October 13, 2010, the decision was reviewed again.

Organized visits with her family in city C failed, due to the negative reactions of the adolescent. Once again X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months with integration in a foster family for a period of eight months for a total placement of one year. [social worker 2] then put forward the idea that a solution with the community should be found provided X was ready to do her part and change her attitude. [ 9 ] The following facts are admitted or proven on a balance of probabilities.

[ 10 ] To this day, the relationship between X and her mother remains strained. The mother has her own personal struggles, some of which led to violence as she was recently released from jail after assaulting her common law partner. After many years of fright, X now blames her mother for being placed in a reception centre. [ 11 ] Since the last judgment, the adolescent has been in a reception centre in city B, more specifically at the A centre. A two-part integration plan to a foster family in Puvirnituq was put into place.

In order to facilitate her transition, X benefited from the support of an educator from the city B reception centre as well from a Youth Protection worker from the North. During the second part of the integration, the support of the D.Y.P. worker was to help X cope with the negative influences within the community during her stay in the foster family. Unfortunately, X expressed suicidal thoughts followed by a suicidal crisis. One night she left her foster home with the family's quad bike. After driving in a reckless matter she was found by the police with a knife in her possession.

She was then brought to the hospital. Consequently, the foster family disengaged itself. [ 12 ] A second attempt was made to integrate X in her hometown of C, with her brother. There are conflicting reports on the part of the brother as to the adolescent behaviour during her stay. He claimed to one Youth Protection worker that X was there most of the time. To another worker, he stated that X wasn't there half the time and that he wasn't sure of her whereabouts.

Upon her return to city C, X ran away from her escort, delaying the flight to city B. [ 13 ] At the Ulluriaq centre, X is provided with structure adapted to day, evening and weekend living. The re-education approach is based on the principles outlined by the circle of courage philosophy, which include independence, generosity and belonging.

In addition, the adolescent has her own primary worker and can also count on the support of an Inuit worker for the practice of traditional activities. [ 14 ] Unlike what is reported in the revision report, Ms [social worker 6], a worker from the A centre testifies that X's behaviour has somewhat improved during the last six months. At first, X showed a lot of resistance in the performance of basic tasks pertaining to personal hygiene chores and had an aggressive attitude. As for now, she is more respectful of the unit rules. Moreover, she is learning to express her limits in a non-aggressive manner.

However, she still has a tendency to show opposition and has difficulty taking no for an answer. [ 15 ] The above-mentioned evidence must be considered as new facts according to

section 95 of Youth Protection Act . Consequently, the Court considers that the security and development of X are still in danger and authorizes the review of the decision previously rendered. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests a six months placement in a rehabilitation centre with reintegration in a foster family for a period of one year. [ 17 ] The teenager's attorney is of the opinion that the placement of X is unavoidable due to the lack of help given to his client by the D.Y.P.

In order not to discourage the youth, he believes that the Court's order should provide for reintegration in a foster family after three months. In support of its recommendation, counsel filed two handwritten letters from X to the Court.

The Court was moved by the teenager's introspection by which she acknowledges her need for help as well as a certain willingness to accept responsibilities for her actions. [ 18 ] When reviewing a decision, the Court must take into account the new facts that arose but also has to take into consideration the situation from the beginning since the Court decided that the security and development were endangered. [ 19 ] After consultation of the decisions previously rendered, the Court is convinced that there is no expectation that the situation in respect to X's mother will change from a mid or long-term perspective.

Furthermore, the maximum period of placement provided for at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act has been reached. According to the Court file, the teenager has been in foster care for over two years and three months. Consequently, the needs of a consistent, structured, stable and secured environment must be addressed by the Court and of course by the D.Y.P. However,

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act also states that the Court can disregard the maximum periods of placement if it's in the best interest of the child or for other serious reasons, such as the failure to provide the necessary services. [ 20 ] For it's part, the petitioner who has been working for only a few months with the adolescent believes that X's disregard towards the expectations as well as her tendency no to take responsibilities for her actions contribute to the failure of any integration plan.

Accordingly, many foster families known to the D.Y.P. are not ready to care for X, as they feel incapable of providing the structure and authority she needs. [ 21 ] The petitioner admits not knowing if any specific help was given to the adolescent regarding her drug addiction.

Moreover, it seems that the first foster family who was supposed to care for X following the last judgment, was struggling with a suicidal crisis with one of their own children. [ 22 ] In the case at bar, it appears clear to the Court that the rejection first suffered by X led to her behavioural problems which then led to more rejection on the part of foster families and so forth. Of course, X must be held accountable for her behaviour.

Notwithstanding her responsibility, the Director of Youth Protection to whom the adolescent's situation is entrusted to, must show the maturity and willingness to put an end to the vicious circle previously outlined. Undoubtedly, X's situation presents many challenges but the D.Y.P. must put time, energy and creativity in order to give X the hope she desperately needs. [ 23 ] Although the Court ordered that aid, counselling and assistance be provided by the Director of Youth Protection to the youth, one must admit that such aid was not complete.

Notably, in regards to the adolescent's drug problem as it was underlined in February 2010 by [Social Worker 5] Moreover, the main goal is to work with X in developing a life project. To that effect, the adolescent's brother remains an option in the development of the said life plan. Accordingly, the D.Y.P. must reach out to the brother and help him be a part of his sister's life.

[ 24 ] As for X, she must do her part and accept the help of the D.Y.P. and further her implication in the re-education program in place at the rehabilitation centre. Only then will she be able to face the ultimate challenge of reintegration in a family like environment. For the moment, her behaviour remains problematic and she needs to continue to work on herself before any integration becomes possible. In that sense, a six months placement in a rehabilitation centre is reasonable. [ 25 ] X has developed a sense of abandonment and opposition.

Cooperation and additional efforts will have to be put in place in a short period of time given X's right to stable living conditions and considering that a life project is overdue. [ 26 ] FOR THE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X born on […], 1995, remain endangered; [ 29 ] REVISES the order rendered on October 13, 2010; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it; [ 31 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS family visits for the child with her brother Y as often as possible following the child's evolution; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to X for a period of six months; [ 33 ] ORDERS that X be evaluated for her drug addiction and be registered for the proper treatment, if needed be, following the assessment; [ 34 ] ORDERS that X receive counselling from a psychologist; [ 35 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to plan a life project concerning X; [ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Stéphanie Lachance Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Jean-Claude Latraverse Legal Aid Lawyer for the youth Date of hearing: February 15, 2011