2018 QCCQ 19365, 2018 QCCQ 19365

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810808 2018 QCCQ 19365 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000684-156 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 24, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, [...] Applicant and A, [...] Mother and B, [...] and C, [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on December 18, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2002.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her parents and that the placement in a rehabilitation centre has to be prolonged. [ 3 ] The mother, even if dully served, is absent and not represented. The father was met by the DYP worker who informed him about the date of the court hearing, but the father refused to sign the proof of serving.

Considering the evidence, the steps made by the worker, the facts that the father never came at the court house, the consent of the parties and the interest of X, the Court proceed in the absence of the father. [ 4 ] The interested party is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits all the alleged facts and she agrees with the new recommendations which are to reintegrate X under her care as soon as possible. The first recommendation was to reintegrate the youth under the father’s care. [ 5 ] X who is now 16 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune.

She admits most of the alleged facts and she agrees with the measures. Historical situation [ 6 ] In November 2015 , X was diagnosed by the child psychiatrist with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) which requires adaptation in all the spheres of her life. [ 7 ] On January 5, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The parents were living separately. The mother displayed alcohol consumption issues. X had to take medication for her anxiety and aggressiveness. The parents disagreed with this medication.

Since she was an infant, X lived with her paternal grandmother but, in August 2015, as the grandmother was overwhelmed with X’s behaviour, the child went to live with her father. The father had anger management issues, and X feared her father. At the end of November 2015, she went to live with her mother and maternal grandmother but no one were able to impose authority and structure to X. The DYP found a foster family in Town A and she would have access to an external educator and to a psychologist.

The Court declared the security and development of X in danger and entrusted her to a foster family and allowed a reintegration with the parents in the last

three months. The Court also ordered health care services notably for ASD and the continuation of the follow-up with the child psychiatrist, the whole until the end of October 2016. [ 8 ] On March 15, 2016 , the DYP filed an application for revision. X did not respect the authority of the foster family, she ran away many times and she put herself in danger. She was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre three weeks after the last hearing and was there since. The Court maintained the placement at the rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in the foster family as soon as possible.

The Court also ordered a multidisciplinary evaluation by a child psychologist and language specialist, and the continuation of the follow- up with the youth psychiatrist, the whole until the end of February 2017. [ 9 ] On March 3, 2017 , the Court noted that X was doing much better in the late months. Before that she ran away from the Group Home many times, she consumed marijuana and she was hospitalized in November 2016 in Town B for an ectopic pregnancy. The mother was living in Town B and did not exercise regular access to her daughter. The father still displayed anger management issues.

X started having regular contact with her paternal grandmother and the reintegration process at this place was started. The Court maintained X at the rehabilitation centre for a period of six months with a reintegration at the grandmother’s place as soon as the situation allows it. The Court also ordered aid, counselling and assistance until the end of November 2017. [ 10 ] On December 18, 2017 , the Court declared the paternal grandmother as an interested party.

In June 2017, X went back living with her grandmother but she did not respect the rules, she stayed outside late, she did not go to school and she had panic attacks. Her situation deteriorated a lot. X stopped her medication for anxiety. Her aggressiveness increased. The grandmother found knives in X’s bedroom. She was displaying self-harming behaviour and needed stitches for cuts on her arms and legs. She destroyed the interior of the house. The grandmother was overwhelmed and she left the house as she was scared and left X alone without any supervision.

X was entrusted to a Group Home but she ran away many times. The grandmother explained to the Court that her granddaughter can’t tolerate noise. Because of that she can’t go to school. At home, she has to switch off the TV and the radio. X confirmed that she ran away from the Group Home because it was too noisy and there was too much stressors. She really wants to learn, but she said the learning program at the rehabilitation centre are as educational games for little kids. She told the Court she was ready to do everything the Court will impose to be sure to stay at her grandmother's place.

She is the only family member she has, she is 85 years old and she would like to be present to help her grandmother and to spend time with her before she dies. As the services she would like to benefit from were already offered to her, and considering she needs a more structured environment, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until the end of November 2018. Facts [ 11 ] The DYP worker alleges that X improved her behaviour a lot, but she still needs support because she could have outbursts. X had regular contact with her father and her grandmother.

She desired to be reintegrated at her father’s place and the latter told being ready to collaborate with the DYP if his daughter came back living with him. It’s also alleged that the father still consume marijuana on a regular basis. [ 12 ] Considering the recent change of mind of the father and his opening to work with the DYP, the recommendation made in the report was to entrust X to her father. But since the report was signed, it was not possible to reach the father despite the many attempts, and as previously mentioned, he did not show up at the court house.

For this reason, the DYP changes his recommendation and suggests to the Court to authorize the reintegration with the grandmother. [ 13 ] The father works in construction and raised his three children alone. During this revision period he was often in Town B for medical reasons and he is still waiting for another surgery. He would like to have his daughter back under his care but as mentioned he does not collaborate to make that possible. His stays in Town B for medical reasons could explain he was not reachable, but as he is not at the court hearing to explain himself, the Court can only suppose.

He is still consuming cannabis, but the police was not involved in his life since the last order. [ 14 ] Before starting a reintegration and to make sure that it will be a success, the DYP informs the Court that his intention is to maintain X at the rehabilitation centre in Town C and after that to transfer her to a Group Home. He would like to make sure that the transition between a close environment and a family environment will not be too drastic. [ 15 ] The revision report describes X as follows: X is a highly intelligent sixteen (16) year old girl diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

X has been place at the centre A in Town C since November 2017. She currently is attending School A in Town C and she is in secondary four and five English. X is currently the only youth from Centre A able to attend this school. X has difficulties tolerating loud noises, which made it difficult for her to attend school at the girl’s unit. X can speak some French, English and [Language A] and does well in school. X is very artistic, she enjoys beading, and she makes money selling her art, which could potentially be a good career choice for her in the future. [ 16 ] The mother’s situation remained the same.

She used to live in Town A since X was an infant and she did not create bond with her daughter. She is now living with her mother in Town B and she still displays alcohol addiction issues. Analysis [ 17 ] The evidence reveals that X has a lot of potential but considering her history, it’s important to make sure that she receives the services she needs and that the adult who will take care of her, have the appropriate tools. [ 18 ] X consents to receive the services, and as mentioned in the report, a new child psychiatrist evaluation is necessary.

She improved a lot and an update of her situation could help the DYP, the social workers and the family members to interact properly with her. Also she started to be able to manage her emotions and to continue in this way, she needs to be helped to know more about herself. [ 19 ] The Court also insists on the importance to adapt the schooling environment to her needs. She has the capacity to succeed and as it was mentioned in the medical report dated from November 2015, the Court asks the child psychiatrist to make any recommendation he

or she considers relevant to help X and to adapt her schooling environment. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2002, are still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with reintegration with her grandmother as soon as possible; [ 23 ] ORDERS that X and her grandmother benefit from the services of an external educator during and after the reintegration process, for a minimal frequency of once a week; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and services; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a child psychiatrist assessment of X be performed, and all the recommendations be followed, including any other evaluation which the child psychiatrist could suggest; [ 27 ] INVITES the child psychiatrist to make any recommendation he or she considers relevant to help X, and to adapt her schooling environment; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the child psychiatrist to have access to X’s medical and schooling files; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between the professionals involved in X’s life with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child psychiatrist evaluation and recommendations be clearly explained to X; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the recommendations made by the child psychiatrist regarding schooling be communicated to the school; [ 32 ] ORDERS that X could have the opportunity to develop her interest for art; [ 33 ] ORDERS that X and her parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the interested party Date of hearing: October 31, 2018