2022 QCCQ 14307, 2022 QCCQ 14307

Protection de la jeunesse — 229029 2022 QCCQ 14307 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002457-205 DATE: June 22, 2022 (written judgment rendered on August 31, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father and C Interested Party and D Interested Party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on November 25, 2021, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a foster family, namely E in Town A, until March 30, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and asks to entrust the youth to a rehabilitation centre, with a gradual reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, until June 30, 2023. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. Me Pereira, his previous lawyer tried to reach him to make sure that he understand the situation well, but he was unable to speak with him. The DYP also took numerous steps to ensure the father’s presence without success. Considering the best interest of the youth, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The interested parties are absent, but represented by Me Nada Boumeftah.

They recognize that the security and development of the youth are still endangered and they agree with the measures. [ 6 ] The youth is 16 ½ years old. She is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. History of the Situation

[ 7 ] The situation of X is known from the DYP since March 2008. [ 8 ] X was born from the union of A and B. Following the agreement of her parents, she had been living all her life with C and D who planned to traditionally adopt her. This traditional adoption never happened. So even if they were presented as her adoptive parents in a few decisions, they had never been. They were her caregivers.

Three decisions were rendered (December 2009, February 2015 and April 2016) in which the caregivers were presented as her parents and the biological parents were never served with the applications. [ 9 ] On December 9, 2009 , the situation of the child was submitted to the Court for the first time. She was 4 and half years old. The father, Mr. D had sexual deviance with minors and was accused of having sexually and physically abused one of his adopted daughters. The father was also abusive toward the mother, Ms. C.

The Court declared that the security and devolvement of the child were endangered and maintained her under her mother’s care for a period of 2 years. The father was ordered to participate to different follow- ups. [ 10 ] On February 18, 2015 , after the file had been closed, the Court was seized with a new application for protection. The evidence reveals the tragic history of the parents. The father would have been sexually and physically abuse by his own father during his childhood. The mother had been adopted and sexually abused since the age of 8 years old. She lived with a partner who attempted to murder her.

She defended herself by killing him. Following that, she got married with the father. Their relation was punctuated by violence, and the mother was feared of the father. He had serious alcohol consumption issues and unpredictable behaviours, but he was very open to receive services and collaborated very well with the DYP. The Court declared that the security and devolvement of the child were endangered and maintained her with her parents until February 28, 2016. [ 11 ] On April 11, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The parents continued to receive services while taking care of their daughter.

X had behavioural issues. The mother collaborated well with the school to improve the situation. The Court maintained the child under her parents’ care and order that she receive a psychological assessment, the whole until January 30, 2017. [ 12 ] At the end of this measure, the file was closed. [ 13 ] On October 2, 2020 , the Court was seized again with the situation of the child. She was 15 years old. At that moment, the biological parents were assigned and they participated at the hearing. The youth was still living at her caregivers’ place.

The parents recognized that their daughter was neglected at her caregivers’ place, and they denied any risk of sexual abuse there. They asked that their daughter be maintained with the caregivers. X considers her caregivers as her parents, but she still has very strong bonds with her biological parents. Mr. D never recognized the infractions of sexual abuses on minors for which he had convicted and he did never seek help for his sexual deviance. Between May 2019 and March 2020, Ms. C left the community and let the youth alone under the care of Mr. D.

In February 2020, the DYP received a report about sexual gesture on the youth from Mr. D’s part. Voluntary measures were signed and the youth came back living with her biological parents, but despite such measures, in March 2020, the youth came back with her caregivers after Ms. C’s return. Since then, the youth refused to speak with the DYP worker except to say that nothing wrong happened. The Court declared that the security and devolvement of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family.

The Court ordered that the youth benefit from a psychological assessment, the whole until August 31, 2021. [ 14 ] On June 13, 2021, Dr. Beltempo, psychologist, signed a psychological evaluation of the child. He concluded as follows: […] We recommended very strongly that X be referred to counselling to which she agreed. We strongly urge that she be assisted by an Interpreter, which is her right. […] We recommend a general supportive approach and not necessarily focus on the sexual abuse at the onset and wait until she is ready and she establishes a trusting therapeutic alliance .

It is important that given her emotional and social isolation, that she would need to be supported and be given space to talk about whatever she wants and then address her past abuse. Secondly, we recommend that she attend school ; during the interview X showed some elements of liking school and so we should make an attempt to have her continue school; she was particularly motivated to become a nurse. Thirdly, I recommend that the DYP, Ms. [social worker 2], monitor X as soon as possible, given the recent disclosures and her emotional state.

X was asked on several occasions whether she was suicidal or homicidal and denied all of these elements throughout the clinical interview. However, we still recommend close follow-ups, check-ins and unplanned visits . Lastly, given her tendency to isolate herself socially, she would benefit from any cultural programming for youth in her Community or nearby Communities. [ 15 ] On July 29, 2021 , under provisional measures, the Court maintained the placement in a foster family and took judicial notice that the youth would be entrusted to Ms. E.

The measures were prolonged until the hearing for revision. [ 16 ] On November 25, 2021 , the Court revised the situation. The biological parents continued to be not involved in the child’s life. Mr. D took no step to address his issues and Ms. C did not consider that he could be a danger. The youth had been entrusted to Ms. Z, until July 2021, when she gave up because the youth was still going at her caregivers’ place. The youth was then entrusted to Ms. E in Town A, but she moved back to Town B without informing the DYP. The Court entrusted the youth to Ms.

E and ordered the youth to stay in Town C, the whole until August 30, 2022. The Court also ordered a prohibition of contacts between her and her brother, Y. [ 17 ] On December 9, 2021 , under provisional measures, the Court maintained the status quo . [ 18 ] On December 14, 2021 , still under provisional measures, the Court entrusted the youth to a foster family, took judicial notice that she will be entrusted to Ms. F until a more permanent place be found. The Court ordered unannounced visits as long as the child would remain entrusted there.

The Court ordered a prohibition of contacts between her and her brother, Y. [ 19 ] On April 4, 2022 , the Court granted the status of parties to the caregivers, Mr. D and Ms. C and prolonged the provisional measures. [ 20 ] On April 6, 2022 , the Court prolonged the immediate protective measures and maintained the youth in a rehabilitation centre. [ 21 ] On April 19, 2022 , under provisional measures, the Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre.

Facts [ 22 ] As mentioned, it had been ordered that X be entrusted to Ms. E in Town A. This decision was not accepted by the family and the relatives, who became very reluctant. Nobody was ready to escort her to her new foster family. They convinced X to disrespect the Court order, and it had been very difficult for the DYP to make the youth travel. [ 23 ] In the interval, Ms.

E changed her mind and renounced to foster the youth. [ 24 ] On December 14, the Court was seized and ordered that the youth be entrusted to F until a more permanent resource be founded. [ 25 ] One month later, X was entrusted to her sister Z. But it had not been long before the sister Z called the DYP saying that she was thinking about giving up and that it would be in X’s best interest to move to another community. [ 26 ] The sister Z justifies that by the fact that X was constantly going to the interested parties’ house and that she was unable to control the situation.

The DYP tried to support the sister as much as possible with the help of the extended family, but X did not respect anything. [ 27 ] X was very disrespectful toward the DYP workers who could not have access to the interested parties’ house to know what was going on there. [ 28 ] For all those reasons, an immediate protective measure was taken and since April 5, 2022, the youth is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 29 ] Since then, the youth met twice with the psychologist and the DYP worker is happy with that, because until recently, X categorically refused to receive such services.

The meetings are planned every 2 weeks, and the duration of the service will be according to X’s needs. She will meet with a sexologist soon. [ 30 ] The DYP worker confirms that the professionals had been informed about the approach recommended by Dr. Beltempo. [ 31 ] To proceed with a reintegration in a foster family, the DYP is waiting that X accept to work on her issues and respect the rules and the modalities of contacts.

X would like to be entrusted back to her previous foster family in Town C, but the DYP does not consider this family for now, considering they bought a plane ticket for X to go back in Town B. [ 32 ] The DYP worker is aware that X would like to have visits with C and D, but despite the numerous attempts, the latter never answer the DYP for the organization of those contacts. [ 33 ] X is doing very well at school since she is at the rehabilitation centre.

Analysis [ 34 ] The application is not challenged, but the parents, as well as X and the caregivers, did not provide a lot of admission. [ 35 ] The non-contested evidence shows that indeed, the situation of the youth continues to endanger. [ 36 ] All agree with the suggested measures and those measures are indeed in the best interest of the youth. We can already see the benefice of the integration in a rehabilitation centre.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the application; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the youth be gradually reintegrated in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth receive specific health care and health services, namely a psychological follow-up and a sexologist follow-up; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participate in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth, Mr.

D and Ms. C be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision the contacts between the youth and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with the professional involved in the life of the adolescent to obtain information regarding the follow-up done, the objectives of the follow-up, the frequency of the meeting and the involvement of the adolescent and all the other aspects remain covered by the client’s privilege; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 50 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2023. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the interested parties Date of hearing: June 22, 2022