2023 QCCQ 7147, 2023 QCCQ 7147

Protection de la jeunesse — 233074 2023 QCCQ 7147 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002102-173 DATE: July 5, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CHANTAL BRASSARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and X Child and A Interested party and B, Director of Youth Protection A, district of [...], Tutor ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Youth Protection Director has filed an application to revise the judgment rendered on January 22, 2020, by the Honourable Lucie Godin, J. C. Q., entrusting the child to the foster family of Mrs. A until his majority. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the child’s situation requires a review of the decision. The child displays behaviour issues and needs to be in a rehabilitation center to work on his issues and be given tools to overcome his anger and learn empathy.

It is noted that the child has been entrusted to such facility (group home) since June 9, 2023, as provisional measure. [ 3 ] As final measure, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center to continue to monitor and address the behaviours of the child. [ 4 ] The foster mother, A, is now an interested party to the hearing. She acknowledges that the child displays behavioural issues but denies that the situation has been deteriorating.

She does not agree with the recommendations. [ 5 ] Although the security or development of the child has never been declared in danger under

section 38 f) (serious behavioural disturbance), the previous decisions highlight the recurring problematics of the child. [ 6 ] The evidence shows that the child has been followed by different services regarding his behaviours. But he no longer engages in therapy, not opening up to the professionals. [ 7 ] The child displayed violent behaviours in the foster environment. He has not been respecting the rules at home. He also recently touched the genital of a boy at school.

Such conduct did also occur before when the child was displaying inappropriate sexualized behaviour toward his peers at school. [ 8 ] The foster mother feels overwhelmed at times, but she does not want to abandon the child. She is trying her best, but the child’s behaviours are sometimes difficult for her to manage. She mentioned several times wanting to give up on the child. [ 9 ] Taking into consideration all evidence adduced and admissions of the parties, the Court finds that the security and development

of the child are still in danger under

section 38

a) and now in danger under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act. THEREFORE THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are in danger under

section 38

a) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act; APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 12 ] According to the Director, the child needs a high intensity of services and structures such as provided at the group home in his community. Supervision is necessary for the child as well as constant discipline and guidance. He is at a turning point in life that his traumas and issues need to be addressed and understood before he gets to be a teenager. The worker testified to that effect. [ 13 ] According to the interested party, the child is doing better under her care than when he was first entrusted to her.

All the necessary services can be offered to the child at home. There is no need for him to be at the Group Home. [ 14 ] A letter from Center A, one from the Montreal Children Hospital and a report by Dr. Beltempo regarding the child have been filed into evidence. All these professionals conclude that the child should be entrusted to a group home. They all acknowledge that the child has attachment issues and that he needs stability. [ 15 ] The ambivalence of the interested party to continue fostering the child may or may not have impacts on the child’s behaviours, as he was made aware of her intentions.

The situation with the previous foster family is another possible cause for his reactions. [ 16 ] The Court did not hear the testimony of the interested party on her position regarding the entrustment of the child to a rehabilitation center. Although, it is clear from her comments, when the Court read with her the allegations of facts written in the application, that she feels that the Group Home is a jail for youth. Because of lack of time, the testimony of the interested party had to be postponed a further date.

She left the courtroom, being upset and before the end of the hearing. [ 17 ] At this point, the Court is convinced, at least for the time being, that the child should be entrusted to the Group Home. But the duration of this placement, the medium to long-term plans for the child and modalities of contacts with the interested party or other significant person cannot be yet determined.

The Court needs more information to decide on the applicable measures. [ 18 ] The child has been entrusted for almost a month to the Group Home but, the worker was unable to provide any information on the child’s situation even since. An evolution report is requested to highlight the court on the applicable measures. [ 19 ] As recommended by Center A, a psychological assessment is needed to better understand the source of the child’s behaviours, the objectives and goals that he needs to achieve and how that can be done.

THEREFORE THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY MEASURES: [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center , chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center; [ 21 ] MAINTAINS all the measures ordered by Judge Lucie Godin on January 22, 2020, that are not in contradiction with this decision; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the foster family and other significant person be favoured by the Director if in the best interest of the child; [ 23 ] ORDERS the production of an updated psychological assessment of the child under

section 87 of the Youth Protection Act and if such assessment cannot be produced in time, that the professionals be available on September 26, 2023, to testify on the situation of the child; [ 24 ] ORDERS that an evolution report of the situation of the child at the Group Home be prepared; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the DYP A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] orders that police force collaborate to the execution of the court order; [ 27 ] POSTPONES the hearing on the applicable measures; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE UNTIL September 26, 2023. __________________________________ MARIE-CHANTAL BRASSARD, J.C.Q.

Me Catherine Windisch Attorney for the Youth Protection Me Lythiana Joëlle Niyonkuru Attorney for the child A Interested party Date of hearing: June 27, 2023 July 5, 2023 Last exhibit: D-25