2019 QCCQ 5214, 2019 QCCQ 5214

Protection de la jeunesse — 194982 2019 QCCQ 5214 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000456-126 DATE: January 16, 2019 (written judgment rendered on June 17, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and C, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 31, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2001. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to Ms. D’s place, with aid, counselling and assistance until January 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the youth should be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, until [...], 2019.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Lazarov. She admits most of the allegations and she agrees that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, but up North and not in City A. [ 4 ] X who is 17 years old is present and represented by Me Martineau. She admits most of the allegations, and she disagrees with the recommendations. She wants to be entrusted to a foster family, but not in City B nor City C. Historical situation [ 5 ] On April 11, 2012 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. At that time, she was ten years old.

Her mother had alcohol consumption issues and was frequently fighting with her sister, E. She also had difficulty to provide food to X and her two siblings. The mother hit her children and admitted being overwhelmed with the situation. X mentioned to her teacher that she wishes to have a new family because in her house they are fighting, yelling, drinking and they are mad people.

Justice Roy declared that the security and development of the child were in danger [1] , entrusted her to a foster family for six months with a possibility of reintegration with the mother if the situation allows it. [ 6 ] On October 16, 2012 , Justice Bigué noted that the mother’s situation drastically deteriorated. After three weeks offering a good collaboration, she left for City A with her new boyfriend and her consumption of drugs and alcohol increased bringing her to be hospitalized. She still had financial difficulties, and her personal hygiene was neglected.

X was still in the same foster family in City B and she was doing very well. The Court entrusted her to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 7 ] On May 28, 2013 , the mother was still in City A and her personal situation remained the same. She did not collaborate with the DYP worker and she was unclear about the project to stay in City A or to move back to City D. She had very irregular contact with X and her siblings and it was always over the phone. After being placed in five different foster families since March 22, 2012, X is now entrusted to her uncle F. She was doing very well.

Justice Bigué entrusted her with her uncle for six months with a view to preparing a permanent life plan for her. [ 8 ] On January 28, 2014 , the situation of the mother continued to deteriorate. She was not reachable until a few days before the court hearing. She received the application but she destroyed it and did not come. X was maintained at her uncle’s place with her sister. The two girls have very strong bonds. The DYP was supposed to prepare a life plan but the uncle is often overwhelmed by the responsibilities and he is difficult to be reached. X’s behaviour deteriorated since the last order.

She mentioned not being well at her

uncle’s place and she would like to go to her grandmother’s place. She was evaluated to foster her but has not been retained as a suitable place. The DYP needed to continue to look for a place for X knowing that it’s important to keep the two sisters together. The Court entrusted her to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 9 ] On October 16, 2014 , the Court noted that X stayed at her uncle’s place.

She improved her behaviour at school since the last order and won an award at the end of the school year for “the most improved student.” X stayed with the perception that her uncle did not want to take care of her and the Court underlines the importance to evaluate if the uncle is committed to take care of his niece on a long term basis. The situation of the mother remained the same, and she was still in City A. The Court entrusted X to a foster family (uncle) until June 17, 2015. [ 10 ] On June 16, 2015 , the DYP asked to prolong another time the placement at the uncle’s place to verify his implication.

His collaboration was irregular and he said he did not need the DYP in his life to take care of his niece. A recent event of conjugal violence with his girlfriend made him more open with the DYP services. The mother was still in City A, she was facing criminal charges but she announced her intention to go to treatment for her alcohol and drug addiction issues on following August. The Court entrusted X to a foster family, namely Mr. F (her uncle) until October 16, 2015.

The Court also orders that X receive specific health care and services regarding the vulnerability of her lungs. [ 11 ] On October 15, 2015 , the DYP asked to prolong another time the placement at the uncle’s place. The mother was detained. X said being well at her uncle’s place but would rather go to her grandmother’s place at City E. The uncle, F, was taking care of X (13 years old) and her siblings Y (8 years old), Z (16 years old) and A (11 years old). The two last ones were adopted by Ms. E (maternal aunt) who was under a tutorship. She was also living with F.

The uncle lived difficult moments with his girlfriend, but the situation was getting better. The Court noted that he was doing his best. It was not easy for him and he needs to be supported. The Court entrusted X to a foster family, namely Mr. F. [ 12 ] On October 14, 2016 , the mother was back in City B and lived at the uncle’s place. Some events of violence occurred between her and her boyfriend in the presence of the child. X attended school regularly and was doing very well. The Court entrusted her to the foster family of Mr.

F until her age of majority. [ 13 ] On February 1, 2018 , the Court was seized with the motion for revision. The uncle disengaged himself in August 2017. Ms. G took care of X but still at the same house in the presence of the mother. X was evaluated in regard to behavioural issues, substance abuse and inappropriate sexual behaviours. She was pregnant and did not attend school regularly. That being said she met weekly with the addiction counsellor and the social worker, and she was also attending all her appointments with the midwife and the clinic. The mother made lots of improvement.

She maintained her sobriety, she worked and provided for her children. She registered herself to go to a family addiction treatment centre in [province A] in April 2018 with X and her sister. The Court entrusted X to her mother until January 31, 2019. [ 14 ] On October 31, 2018 , the Court revised the decision. The adolescent gave birth to her daughter B. During the pregnancy she stopped drinking and consuming. After the birth, the child was entrusted to a foster family until the adolescent was authorized to go to [province A] as planned with her daughter, to participate to a family therapy.

The relation between X and her boyfriend was very conflictual. He accepted to go with her to the therapy to resolve their issues, but after a few days he came back to City B. Since her return from therapy, a foster family was found to foster her and her daughter, but she did not respect the rules and ran away. X was very concerned by her aunt’s well-being and absolutely wants to help her.

As the placement in a Group Home was not better than the placement in a foster family, and as nothing was done to help X, the Court, after hearing the testimony of D, one of her aunts, and considering the good potential of X, entrusted her and her daughter under D’s care following very strict conditions. [ 15 ] On November 11, 2018 , following a provisional hearing, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre and her daughter to a foster family. Facts [ 16 ] Only a few days after the last hearing, D informed the DYP worker that she can’t continue to foster X as she does not respect the rules.

X came at her aunt’s place with friends and they consumed alcohol. [ 17 ] An immediate protective measure was taken, and X was entrusted to the Group Home in City C. The same day, she registered herself at the adult school and found a job at the grocery store. [ 18 ] Regarding the visits with her daughter fostered in City B, the evidence shows that few attempts were made to organize it, but as X ran away it had to be cancelled. [ 19 ] The first visit took place on December 7, 2018, but she also ran away during the weekend despite the facts she was escorted.

She was found only on January 9, 2019, one month after and no warrant was asked. She was able to see her daughter once without authorization, at the father’s place when he exercised his access. [ 20 ] The DYP wants to help X to gain maturity, autonomy and to develop a healthy way of life. She is able to do very well in a structured environment, but as soon as she has a little freedom, she misbehaves. [ 21 ] The plan is to maintain her at the Group Home in City C. One of her sisters is entrusted there. It’s the main reason why X was not entrusted to the [Unit A] in City F.

X never told the worker that she would like to go in another village. She only said that she would like to go back to therapy. [ 22 ] The DYP also mentions the importance to maintain frequent contacts between X and her daughter. As X ran away many times during her visit in City B, the DYP would like to make the foster family travelling to City C to avoid the temptation to run away. [ 23 ] The DYP worker present is the replacement worker as the worker assigned is on vacation. Since the last hearing, X received

two communications from the DYP. According to Ms. [Social Worker 2], it’s difficult to understand why X run away so frequently, because she does not open herself about her emotions. [ 24 ] The DYP worker indicates that the referral to a psychologist is not done yet as X always run away. [ 25 ] As the previous hearing, X testifies with a lot of confidence. She asks to be entrusted in a foster family outside from City B or City C, as she has a lot of friends in those villages and they have bad influences. [ 26 ] She recognized that she runs away.

As before, she spent most of the time at her aunt’s, E who is under a tutorship, because she wants to help her as many people abused of her vulnerability. The DYP worker never went to this address to see if she was there. [ 27 ] She said being well taken care at the Group Home but feel sad as the other youths speak about suicide. She never told the DYP worker about this aspect because she feels misunderstood. She had a few communications with the DYP worker who asked her how is she’s going, but never spoke with her about the reasons why she runs away.

She would like to know on what aspect they will work with her, but she has no information. When she tries to call, it’s always the answering machine. [ 28 ] X would like to go back to the Therapy Centre in [province A] with her daughter. She would also like to go to City G or City E as she has family members and friends there who do not consume. The name of those persons was communicated to the DYP in October, as potential foster families, but they were never contacted by the DYP.

Despite the difficulty at the Group Home in City C, she agrees to stay there if she can’t go to a foster family, as her sister is there and she would like to be with her. She also wants to receive services from a therapist more often. [ 29 ] The mother testifies and tells being sober since she came back from detention on January 11. She feels better. She intends to entrust [Therapy Center A] and already met a worker when she was at Leclerc Detention Center. Since she is back in City B, she meets with the addiction counsellor once a week. [ 30 ] She agrees with her daughter’s plan to go back to [province A].

She is aware that the Group Home in City C is not the best place for her. She also gave names of persons in City E to foster X, but she never receives any feedback. [ 31 ] She asked to have a visit in City C to see her daughters, but nothing was organized. She only has phone contact with her daughters. Analysis [ 32 ] As during the last hearing, X was able to express herself and to admit what went wrong. She is very brilliant, but she was not able to respect the conditions imposed by the Court.

The rules were very clear, but only a few days after the decision, she consumes with friends at her aunt’s. [ 33 ] This non-respect has not only consequences on X, but also on her daughter, who is now entrusted and can’t evolve with her mother. [ 34 ] More of that, X did not respect the rules during the home visits which reduce the time spent with her daughter. [ 35 ] X has to understand the importance for her and for her daughter to respect the conditions. The Court is convinced that X does not want her daughter to have the same childhood as hers and that she wants to offer her a better life.

To achieve that, she has to take care of her and to benefit from the help offered to her. [ 36 ] For sure the communication between the DYP worker and X is not adequate. It’s not possible to offer services to X with only two phone calls. X was running away during a certain period, but when she was at the Group Home, there is no reason not to offer a closer follow-up. X needs to feel supported and she wants to have information about what will be working on. It’s her right to be informed and it’s the only way to keep her implicated.

An intervention plan should be prepared and applied. [ 37 ] The Court concludes that X can’t be entrusted to a foster family and she needs to receive rehabilitation services. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2001, are still in danger; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until [...], 2019; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 42 ] ORDERS that health care and services be provided to X; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment be performed urgently and a follow-up be offered as long as judged necessary; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES X to go to a treatment centre for drugs, alcohol and personal issues; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection facilitate X to be able to entrust this treatment centre; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation;

[ 47 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 49 ] STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the mother to entrust a therapy centre; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision and be facilitated with a minimum frequency of once a month starting at the beginning of February; [ 51 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and the family; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 53 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 54 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the youth Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 16, 2019