2020 QCCQ 12316, 2020 QCCQ 12316

Protection de la jeunesse — 208614 2020 QCCQ 12316 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-035091-198 DATE: September 16, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2007 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) and order of interim measures ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on September 16, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on May 27, 2019. [ 3 ] On May 14, 2020, due to the exceptional circumstances linked with the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing had to be postponed. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, taking judicial notice that she is presently on a waiting list for a CRDI/A resource, and that once one is identified for her, a gradual integration into such resource will commence.

The Director also recommends that diverse support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother is absent but she mandated her lawyer. She agrees with the Director’s plan at the exception of the potential suspension of contact. [ 6 ] The father was duly notified but is absent. [ 7 ] The child’s attorney recommends that the Tribunal renders a provisional decision in order to assess what will happen with his client’s the potential transfer. Question in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child has remained placed in a resource that does not correspond to her needs.

[ 10 ] The child has continued to exhibit difficult behaviours and physical outbursts. She’s been aggressive towards objects and individuals. She still requires a highly structured environment and a one-on-one supervision. On July 17, 2019, she’s been transferred from Group Home A to a more structured campus unit at [...]. Since, she has continued to present with oppositional and impulsive behaviours.

It has been reported that in the past few months, her behaviour somewhat improved. [ 11 ] She remains on a waiting list to be placed in a CRDI/A resource. [ 12 ] Recently, a resource has been identified through CRDI-TED A: Unit 24. This resource is dedicated to children with severe behavioural disturbances (troubles de comportements graves). The day staff is bilingual and some of its residents are English speaking. Mrs.

Sherlly Marcellus, specialized educator with CRDI-TED A, testified that the child could integrated this specialized resource during the week of September 28, 2020. [ 13 ] The Youth Protection worker mentioned that it was the Director’s intention to transfer the child in this specialized resource. [ 14 ] During her testimony Dr. Aisling O’Gorman, the child’s pediatrician, reminded the court of the importance of finding a resource that would ideally meet all or her patient’s needs.

She was surprised that a more appropriate resource could not be identified within the English system ([Resource A]). [ 15 ] She made the following recommendations for her patient: • Occupational therapy assessment; • Focus on the child’s sensory needs; • Psychoeducator comprehensive evaluation; • Psychotherapy and/or Art therapy; • Psychiatric evaluation (already scheduled October 22, 2020); • Access to appropriate educational setting/transportation. [ 16 ] The mother has not maintained consistent visits with the child. She had difficulty respecting her commitments to visits her daughter.

This impacted on the child. During visits with the child, the mother does not always focus her time and energy on her daughter. At times, the Director had difficulty contacting the mother. Her collaboration has continued to fluctuate. [ 17 ] The mother mentioned that she completed a rehabilitation program at Pavilion A. The Youth Protection worker was unable to confirm this information. [ 18 ] For many years, the mother reported to the different Youth Protection workers involved that she wanted her daughter to be transferred to a specialized resource. [ 19 ] The father has been uninvolved with the child.

He had one visit with her and the paternal grandmother in December 2019. He did not collaborate with the Director. He rarely contacted the Youth Protection worker. He confirmed that he was homeless for a certain period. [ 20 ] The child benefited from authorized holiday visits with her maternal grandmother.

On December 25, 2019 and January 1, 2020, the child had to be returned to the unit as the family could not manage the child’s behaviours. [ 21 ] It is clear for the Tribunal that the Youth Protection workers and the other Youth Centre employees have advocated for this child with passion and perseverance. [ 22 ] The responsibility of choosing an appropriate resource for the child remains under the Director’s prerogative. The Director has to find, within the available resource, an environment that would meet the child’s many needs: safety, linguistic, developmental, cultural, etc.

In some circumstances, the Director cannot necessary look for the best resource for the child, but rather for the least detrimental solution. We are in such situation. [ 23 ] For many years, despite the support provided to the centre’s educators, the Director has not been able to ensure that the child would not present a danger to herself or to others within the structure of a [Youth Protection A] resource.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 26 ] REFERS the present file to the Maître des rôles to set a date for the continuation of the hearing for a duration of two hours before the undersigned; [ 27 ] In the meantime: [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted in a rehabilitation centre;

[ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that, as of the week of September 28, 2020, a place will be open for the child in Unit 24 which is a rehabilitation centre operated by CRDI-TED A; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother always wanted for her child to integrate into a specialized resource that would correspond to her needs; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES that the child be transferred and reside in Unit 24 in the rehabilitation centre operated by CRDI-TED A; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from being under the influence of any substance while in the child’s presence and that they ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of conjugal violence; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents meet with Dr.

Grigorova to review the child’s psychological assessment; [ 35 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of attributes of parental authority pertaining to health, education, leisure and travel needs (including obtaining a passport) and GRANTS this exercise of these attributes of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection will transfer all the pertinent information, including many evaluations, to the CRDI-TED; [ 37 ] TAKES NOTICE of the agreement of all parties to exceed the delay of sixty days; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on September 17, 2020 /cd Mtre Dominique Douglas Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christian Benoît Counsel for the child Mtre Jean-Hervé Thomas Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 16, 2020