2021 QCCQ 15163, 2021 QCCQ 15163

Protection de la jeunesse — 218764 2021 QCCQ 15163 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000496-130 DATE: September 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on December 2, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] & [SOCIAL WORKER 2] & [SOCIAL WORKER 3], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, unknown address 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 review a decision rendered on September 12, 2016, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child until his age of majority to his sister, Ms.

B. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the adolescent to his sister and asks that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, with an integration of the youth in his social or family environment if the situation allows it, until May 31, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she disagrees with the measures. She asks that her son be back in the community immediately. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett.

He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he also disagrees with the measures. He asks to return to his sister’s place immediately. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On February 12, 2013 , the Court was seized with the situation of the child. X was 7 years old. The Court declared that the situation of the child was endangered and entrusted him to his sister, B and prohibited Mr.

C to go to the child’s residence, the whole for 6 months. [ 6 ] On April 4, 2013 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family (confidential address) on provisional measures. [ 7 ] On May 7, 2013 , the Court ratified a draft agreement. The parties recognized that the mother lived at the foster place with the child and that she did not respect the prohibition of contacts between the child and her boyfriend. The foster mother was overwhelmed and renounced to continue to foster the child.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and maintained the prohibition of contacts between the child and the mother’s boyfriend, the whole for 6 months. [ 8 ] On November 15, 2013 , the Court entrusted the child to D and E under provisional measures, and to a foster home on December 30, 2013. [ 9 ] On January 20, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. Since the previous decision, X moved a few times between one foster home to another home and each time it was due to his aggressive behaviour. He was finally entrusted to another foster family in Town A, and he behaved better there.

The mother still struggled with her alcohol consumption issues, she remained in her violent conjugal relationship and she did not maintain regular contact with her son. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for 7 months and ordered that the child receive medical care notably a speech therapist follow-up.

[ 10 ] On May 28, 2014 , the Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre under provisional measures. [ 11 ] On July 8, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that the foster mother was overwhelmed with the aggressive behaviour of the child. The mother situation remained the same (conjugal violence, instability and a lack of collaboration).

The Court entrusted the adolescent to a reception centre for one year and authorized a reintegration in a foster family or under his mother’s care if the situation allows it, and maintained the prohibition of contacts between the child and the mother’s boyfriend. [ 12 ] On May 5, 2015 , the evidence showed that the adolescent was doing very well at the centre and at school. He developed good relation with the educators and was very happy at each visit in Village A. The adolescent was ready to integrate progressively a foster family. The mother’s situation remained the same, and she did not address her issues.

The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre until June 25, 2015, with a progressive integration in a foster family, the whole until May 31, 2016. [ 13 ] On September 15, 2015 , the Court entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre as provisional measures, but considering the foster family where he was, was considered as a rehabilitation centre, the Court recommended that he remained there. [ 14 ] On November 10, 2015 , the evidence showed that the adolescent maintained a good behaviour in his foster family, but he felt rejected in the community. He was bullied and started acting out.

He did well at the rehabilitation centre and a foster family in his own community would be presented to him. The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre with a progressive integration in a foster family. [ 15 ] On April 14, 2016 , the evidence showed that the adolescent did very well and integrated her sister’s place in January 2016. The DYP has no DYP worker in the community. The Court entrusted the adolescent to his sister, Ms.

B and ordered that the family receive the help of an external educator, the whole until September 16, 2016. [ 16 ] On September 12, 2016 , The Court notes that the youth was doing very well at his sister’s place. The mother was doing better, but she recognized that her son was never so happy. Doing so, she was in agreement with the long-term placement requested by the DYP. The Court entrusted him to his sister until he reaches his majority. Facts and Analysis [ 17 ] X remained with his sister since the last decision.

The situation went well until 2019, when the DYP started to receive reports about behavioural issues.

Indeed, since the beginning of the school year 2019-2020, X showed difficulties at school and in the village: - August 2019: he threatened to fire the school and was verbally abusive toward the school principal; - September 2019: he punched the school fire extinguisher with his fist, while he was highly intoxicated by marijuana; - November 2019: he pointed an imitation of a gun toward his teacher and was facing criminal charges of possession of a weapon; - November 2019: he was found intoxicated in a shack, incoherent and agitated.

For his safety he was brought at the nursing and was physically aggressive toward the nurse. He was charged of an assault. He also disclosed that he was the victim of a sexual assault the night before; - Since beginning of the school year 2020-2021: he did not attend school, but rather worked. [ 18 ] Her sister started to display personal issues and developed alcohol and drugs consumption issues. She stopped collaborating with the DYP workers, became aggressive toward them, the whole in the presence of X.

She became not able to provide for him, not able to insure his safety, her house was messy and drugs were found at her place. For all those reasons, her own children had to be removed from her care. [ 19 ] She left X without any supervision and she spent a lot of time at his uncle’s place playing video games all night and consuming drugs. [ 20 ] The mother is also non-collaborative.

She has no stable place to stay, so she lives most of the time at her daughter’s place with X. [ 21 ] On August 16, 2021, the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and the youth was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. Many attempts were made to locate him and to make him take his plane and it is only on September 9 that he took his plane to travel to the Group Home A. [ 22 ] The DYP worker testifies that no one in the community is available to take care of X, but she received an e-mail the day of the hearing about potential foster family that she will assess shortly.

The first choice would be that the sister came back on the right path and would be able to resume his care, but it is necessary to look for another option. Analysis [ 23 ] The important quantity of cannabis consume by the adolescent obviously put him in a situation of danger and has a direct impact on his development, on his involvement in his schooling and in all the spheres of his life.

The damage it could cause is well known and this issue has to be addressed properly and in a timely manner to avoid too much consequence. [ 24 ] The Court notes that the evidence provided by the DYP is thin on different aspects and this is due to the fact that the Village A does not benefit from a permanent DYP worker.

Such situation is unacceptable in this present file, but in all the file already open for the children living in Village A and for the potential situation that will unfortunately occur in the future. [ 25 ] Due to this lack of resources, the village receive the visit of a DYP worker only once every 2 weeks, the whole if everything

goes well with the weather and if the plane arrives. [ 26 ] In this specific situation, the lack of resources had an impact on the intervention. Indeed, the difficulties at the sister’s place are unknown. Since 2019, different issues are known. The situation degenerated progressively to the point we know today, 2 years later.

The Court is convinced that adequate interventions and adequate support at the right time would have prevented the situation described today and would have avoided a placement in a rehabilitation centre. [ 27 ] Everybody knows what a placement in a rehabilitation centre means for an Inuk youth coming from such an isolated village and all the consequences it could have on him, on his family immediately and also on a long term basis. The purpose of the law is to avoid such situation.

The placement in a rehabilitation centre is the most drastic measure. [ 28 ] Moreover, it is important to note that during that time, the behavioural issues were rooting deeply and deeply. Doing so, when the intervention is finally done, the duration of the measures has to be longer than it could have been if the intervention would have been done before. [ 29 ] The absence of a DYP worker in the village is the direct cause of the non-respect of the Court order rendered on August 16, 2021.

As no worker was present, no one was able to take the steps to make him travel and before a worker arrives in the village, look for him, find him and make him travel, there was a delay of more than 3 weeks. During that time, the youth’s whereabouts were unknown. Was he in danger? For sure! Beyond the danger, it is also a question of coherence between what is asked to the Court and what is done after obtaining a favourable Court decision. [ 30 ] The Court was not provided with an important evidence about the duration.

The DYP testifies that after a 30-day period of observation in a rehabilitation centre, a reintegration in a foster family could be seriously considered. This period started when he arrived on September 9, 2021. Despite the concerns raised by the Court at paragraph 28, the Court was not provided with the evidence that a long-term period would be necessary in this situation. [ 31 ] Doing so, the Court considers that a placement of 2 months is sufficient to observe and to start the follow-up.

This duration is also long enough for the DYP to organize the different services that could be provided to the adolescent in his village in person or by videoconference.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre for a maximum period of 2 months; [ 35 ] ORDERS the integration of the youth in his social or familial environment if the situation allows it, after the 2-month placement; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 37 ] 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; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the youth; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol, drug and personal issues; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive specific health care and services, notably a follow-up regarding his drug consumption; [ 42 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to organize such follow-up to make sure this service is available after the 2-month placement; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, his mother and his sister (the former foster family) be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 46 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 47 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2022.

__________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the youth Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 22, 2021