2021 QCCQ 11579, 2021 QCCQ 11579

Protection de la jeunesse — 216566 2021 QCCQ 11579 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-031177-165 DATE : October 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION FOR THE CENTRE INTÉGRÉ UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX A Director and X born on [...], 2009 child And A B Parents and C , paternal grandmother and party ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The present judgment renders and gives reasons for a decision taken under advisement on September 3 rd , 2021. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of an Application filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A (" the Director" ) to revise and extend an order rendered by the undersigned on November 1 st , 2018 entrusting the child to Ms. C, the paternal grandmother, with various corrective measures until her age of majority. [ 3 ] The Director alleges the following: 3.1. Since the last court hearing, the paternal grandmother has struggled with the child’s behaviours; 3.2. There has been little improvement in the child’s behaviour; 3.3.

On the contrary, the child will often get triggered and react by biting the grandmother and behaving more aggressively;

3.4. An educator from the CRDITED network has been working with the family to assist with managing the child’s emotions and behaviours; 3.5. Since July 2020, there has been continual friction between the paternal grandmother and the CRDITED educator; 3.6. The child has refused to attend school, missing approximately thirty (30) days of school since the beginning of September 2020; 3.7. On November 5, 2020, a meeting was held at the school to discuss the child’s attendance issues and to address the child’s statement that she was being bullied; 3.8.

In spite of said November 5, 2020, meeting, the child has yet to return to school; 3.9. The paternal grandmother calls 911 to assist her in deescalating the child’s behaviours; 3.10. Since June 2020, the grandmother has called 911 on three (3) occasions, the last time being November 9, 2020; 3.11. The grandmother fluctuates between her wanting the child placed or remaining with her; 3.12.

More particularly, since the beginning of October 2020, the paternal grandmother has called the youth protection worker at least once a week to say that she was overwhelmed and to discuss placement only to, then, quickly change her mind; 3.13.

The grandmother is not collaborating with educators in a way that allows for improvement in the situation. [ 4 ] As explained later, based on these allegations and on events that have occurred since it was originally filed, including X’s placement in a rehabilitation centre, the Director is recommending that X remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for the next year. [ 5 ] X, her paternal grandmother and the father are asking that X return to her paternal grandmother’s care now or as soon as possible whereas the mother, who was largely absent from the hearings, appears to support the Director’s recommendations. [ 6 ] Thus, the Court must principally decide if X returns to her paternal grandmother’s care or stays in placement and if so, for how long. [ 7 ] The hearing on this application began via an Application for the child to be provisionally entrusted to a foster family, Application that was granted on November 19, 2020. [ 8 ] On November 23, 2020, the paternal grandmother’s request to be recognized as a party to the hearing was granted for the reasons that appear in the minutes of that hearing, and the main hearing was set for January 25, 2021. [ 9 ] In the meantime, the paternal grandmother seized the Court in relation to the adolescent’s visits during the Christmas period.

The judge seized of this Application authorized contact for December 25, 2020 and, if the visit went well, December 31, 2020 as well. [ 10 ] When the main hearing began before the undersigned on January 25, 2021 , the Director recommended a six month foster family placement for the child. On that date, X was in agreement with the recommendation but her paternal grandmother was not.

X’s parents were not present. [ 11 ] The evidence at that point showed that X, who had been in her paternal grand-mother’s care since 2016, has received various diagnoses over the years: ADHD, Autism spectrum disorder as well as attachment and psychosocial issues. That said, X had not undergone a psychological evaluation since 2017. [ 12 ] X began to show quite aggressive behaviour towards her grandmother, particularly as of Mach 2020.

This had led to various police interventions at the grandmother’s request, visits to psychiatry, the grandmother having difficulty getting X to school and periodic demands by the grandmother to the Director that X be placed. [ 13 ] Psychiatric reports from October and early November 2020 hospital visits refer to X having severe behavioural disturbances and her grandmother being overwhelmed. [ 14 ] Various professionals working with the family had informed the youth protection worker that working with the paternal grandmother was not always easy and that she would sometimes ask them not to share important information with the DYP. [ 15 ] All of the above led to the child’s placement in a foster family, first under immediate protective measures on November 11, 2020 during which the grandmother and father showed aggressive behaviour towards the youth protection worker, then a provisional Court order rendered on the 19 th . [ 16 ] It should be noted that the November 19, 2020 Court order entrusting X to a foster family allowed X’s “ integration to an intermediate resource from the DI network as soon as one becomes available ”. [ 17 ] Thus, even as of November 2020, the Director’s intention was to have X placed in a CRDI resource given her particular needs. [ 18 ] Following her foster family placement, X was reluctant to have contact with her grandmother and, as indicated earlier, was even agreeing to a six month foster family placement. [ 19 ] At the same time, the grandmother was making arrangements to seek private services in order to help her better deal with X’s difficulties. [ 20 ] The Court was therefore convinced that there was still a lot of work that needed to be done in order for X to return to her

grandmother’s care and that given her age, X could not be physically forced to return. The DYP’s objective was nonetheless to have X return to her grandmother’s care and was open to looking at unsupervised visits and increased time with her grandmother if the situation allowed.

The Court also felt that an updated psychological evaluation of the child would be helpful. [ 21 ] For those reasons, at the January hearing, the Court rendered the following interim order: • ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster family; • ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents, paternal grandmother and siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for frequency, modalities and degree of supervision; • TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director’s objective is to increase the number and decrease supervision of contacts between X and her paternal grandmother depending on how the situation evolves; • TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director will explore the possibility for X to spend from Friday after school until Saturday at her grandmother’s home if X consents and proper arrangements are made in that regard; • ORDERS that X undergo an updated psychological evaluation and RECOMMENDS that the assessment be done by someone who has specific knowledge in Autism; • TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ORDERS that the Director consult with the child’s psychiatrist, Dr.

Errunza, to see if there can be suggestions made in that regard; • RECOMMENDS to the father to seek support services to address his personal issues including anger, mental health issues and substance abuse; • TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the paternal grandmother will be obtaining services for herself and her granddaughter and ORDERS to the Director to collaborate in that regard; • WITHDRAWS from the parents the attributes of their parental authority in regards to signing consents for X’s medical needs, education, extracurricular activities, travel needs and applying for a passport, and AUTHORIZES the paternal grandmother to sign for the child’s consents; • RECOMMENDS to the paternal grandmother to partake in parenting skills groups, trainings and self-care activities and to inform the Director immediately when she does so; • AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with all service providers working with X and her family; • ORDERS a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; • THE WHOLE UNTIL April 19, 2021. [ 22 ] In the next weeks, X did well in placement and in school ([School A]) but continued to have difficulties in regard to visits with her grandmother.

The youth protection worker would show up at the foster home up to 90 minutes before a visit in order to coax X to attend. The foster mother also encouraged X to visit. However, X would state that she found visits overwhelming and even told the worker that if visits did not stop, she would hit her grandmother. [ 23 ] X then began to present serious behavioural problems in the foster home which led to her emergency placement in a regular (non-CRDI) group home on March 15, 2020 .

At an emergency hearing held on March 25, 2021, the parties agreed to X remaining in a rehabilitation centre and by way of a consent signed by the parties, the Court ordered X’s rehabilitation centre placement and took judicial notice of the consent filed with the Court and which contains specific visits of X to her grandmother, the whole until the April 19, 2021 Court date. [ 24 ] X did well in placement ([group home A]) although the Director felt that the group home was not equipped to deal with X’s autism spectrum disorder and was wanting to transfer the adolescent to a CRDI resource.

However, the child’s psychiatrist was recommending that X be maintained in her group home. Visits home that were scheduled every weekend remained problematic as often, X did not want to visit. School transportation then became an issue and the Director was unable to make arrangements for X to get to school. The Director did not respond to the grandmother’s offer to transport X to and from school. [ 25 ] On her own, the grandmother began receiving services from different resources (with [Centre A] and therapist Linda Aber) in order to help her deal more effectively with her granddaughter.

Some of this work was to eventually include X herself. [ 26 ] Nonetheless, given the grandmother’s general difficulties in collaborating with the Director, her foster family status was revoked, at least until she could undergo a parental capacity assessment. [ 27 ] On April 19, 2021 , the decision was taken under advisement until July 5, 2021 and status quo was maintained. [ 28 ] In May 2021 however, before the Court rendered its decision, the Director expressed its intention to move X to a CRDI

resource. The grandmother then seized the Court on an emergency basis to stop this move and the Application was heard by the undersigned on May 20, 2021. At that time, both the grandmother and X were asking the Court to either maintain X in [group home A] or return her to her grandmother’s care. [ 29 ] Following the testimony of both the grandmother and the youth protection worker and in view of the evidence as a whole, the Court reiterated that, given X’s behaviour and the difficulties in her relationship with her grandmother, it would be premature to return X to her grandmother’s care.

As well, the Court underlined that it is the DYP’s responsibility under the YPA [1] to choose the rehabilitation centre that best meets the child’s needs, not the Court’s. [ 30 ] In addition, the Court added that more information was required in order to eventually make a final decision, including the recommendations of the psychiatrist (Dr. Gignac) following X and the psychologist (Dr.

Benaroch) who had assessed her. [ 31 ] Consequently, on May 20, 2021 , the Court rendered the following interim order: DISMISSES the paternal grandmother’s Application; • MAINTAINS the status quo; • TAKES NOTE that the Director of Youth Protection intends to move the child to a CRDI resource; • ENCOURAGES the contacts between X and her paternal grandmother, Ms.

C; • TAKES NOTE that X spends weekends at her paternal grandmother from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon and ORDERS that it be maintained unless the situation deteriorates; • ORDERS the DYP to make sure that X is available, even during the week, in order to receive clinical work by service providers that the grandmother hired that could include work with the paternal grandmother; • ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between X and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including the parents; • ORDERS to the father not to have any contact with X unless authorized by the DYP; • TAKES NOTE that the paternal grandmother has begun a parental capacity assessment and RECOMMENDS that the assessor be informed of what the DYP is looking for; • TAKES NOTE that the DYP will ensure that X attend [School A] for the current school year whether or not the paternal grandmother helps with transportation; • ORDERS that the DYP, from now until the next court hearing, look at the various school options for the next school year; • ORDERS the DYP to provide, at the next court hearing, through either Dr.

Gignac or Dr.

Benaroch, what recommendations are required for X in terms of being in a rehabilitation centre or returning to her grandmother’s care; • ORDERS the paternal grandmother to report quickly and faithfully all difficulties that she meets with X to the Director of Youth Protection; • AUTHORIZES the DYP to communicate with the service providers working with X and her family; • ORDERS a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; • ORDERS that the DYP inform the paternal grandmother of the specific resource chosen for X. [ 32 ] The hearing was scheduled to continue on July 5 and July 8, 2021. [ 33 ] At the July hearings, the Director was requesting a four month interim order to come up with final recommendations.

Numerous witnesses were heard, including from the DYP, the CRDI network, the child’s psychiatrist and the grandmother. [ 34 ] The minutes from the July 8, 2021 hearing reflect the relevant facts and the order rendered on that date: • Considering the need to continue the hearing given a sudden death in the youth protection worker’s family; • Considering that following the interim court order of May 20, 2021, the Director felt at liberty to follow through on transferring X to a CRDI intermediary resource; • Considering that in the end, X integrated the Resource A on June 11, 2021; • Considering that the clients in the said resource have varying types and degrees of difficulties and that X is within the higher functioning youth in the home; • Considering that certain professionals have expressed concerns about X being in this home and that she might isolate herself, be exposed to inappropriate behaviour by other youth and possibly regress;

• Considering that the DYP is asking for a four (4) month interim court order maintaining X within this CRDI resource in order to come up with further recommendations; • Considering that X has already been placed for about eight (8) months and wants to return to her grandmother’s care as soon as possible; • Considering that the psychiatrist involved with X, Dr. Gignac, considers that there is a need to observe X in a same environment for a period of three (3) to six (6) months prior to making further recommendations; • Considering that Dr.

Gignac is scheduled to see the family and professionals involved on August 31 st , 2021; • Considering that the parties disagree as to which school the child should attend next year, the grandmother wanting to register the child in a school near her home in the east end or City A, while the DYP is looking at a school near the CRDI resource in the [region A]; • Considering that X is to undergo a neuropsychological assessment; • Considering that there have been serious problems in the past with the child’s school attendance while living with her grandmother and that while entrusted to a group home, she missed good part of the last school year and needed to be transported to school by her grandmother; • Considering that there is a history of serious conflict between X and her grandmother and that the child’s repeated crises, violence, police interventions and hospital visits finally led to the child’s placement last November; • Considering that there continues to be serious issues in the relationship between X and her grandmother and that X has on occasion been aggressive, hostile or rejecting towards her grandmother; • Considering that in the past, prior to X’s placement, and a few times since, it appears that the grandmother has hidden or asked X to hide certain important pieces of information from the Director regarding their conflicts, even after an Order of this Court that she be transparent about the difficulties she encounters with X so that proper decisions can be made in the child’s best interest; • Considering that the Court is of the opinion that X’s return to her grandmother’s care on a full-time basis would be premature at this point in time; • Considering that the grandmother is involved in receiving services to better understand how to deal with X and avoid triggering her acts of aggression or hostility towards her to the extent possible; • Considering that the CRDI needs to be able to observe X in their resource for an extended period in order to help make proper recommendations for the child’s future; • Considering Dr.

Gignac’s recommendation to allow quality time between the grandmother and the child; • Considering that the case will be continued on September 3 rd , 2021, in less than two months; • Considering that the grandmother is asking to have X with her for a three week period as well as more than half of the week but that this would not allow for a proper observation as recommended by Dr.

Gignac; • Considering that a one week period would allow X to be outside the resource and to see her extended family; • Considering that, for the last two weeks, X has been spending Friday to Monday with her grandmother; THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING INTERIM MEASURES : • ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; • TAKES JUDICIAL NOTE that X is presently in a CRDI Resource; • ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to closely oversee that the child’s needs are met within this home and that she is not subject of any inappropriate sexual or physical threats or acts and that she is properly stimulated; • ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between X and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if required; • WITHDRAWS from the parents the attributes of their parental authority in regards to signing consents for X’s medical needs, education, extracurricular activities, travel needs, and applying for a passport, and AUTHORIZES Ms.

C to sign for the child’s consents; • ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between X and her paternal grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; • ORDERS that the contacts between X and her paternal grandmother be minimally from Friday to Monday each week and the whole week of July 23 rd , 2021; • ORDERS the grandmother, during the one week vacation with X, to report to the DYP daily or as required by the DYP;

• ORDERS the grandmother, if she is outside City A during the one week vacation, to return to City A if X shows signs of outburst, violence or aggressivity; • ALLOWS the DYP and the grandmother to increase or decrease the visits if it is determined that it is in the X’s best interest; • ORDERS that the DYP ensure that X is available for any clinical work that has been arranged by the grandmother either with the neuropsychologist or with the [Centre A]; • ALLOWS the DYP to have unscheduled visits at the grandmother’s home; • ORDERS the grandmother to report immediately and faithfully to the DYP any difficulty that may arise concerning her contacts with X; • AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with all service providers working with X and her family; • ORDERS a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; • THE WHOLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3rd, 2021 , at 9h30 , room to be determined, for the whole day, in front of the undersigned; • ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A to shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] Thus, the hearing was again continued to September 3, 2021. [ 36 ] The evidence adduced on that date is that during the two month interim period (July 8 to September 3, 2021), X remained in the same CRDI resource and did generally well.

However, she tends to isolate herself and interacts with the staff, very little with the other youth in the residence. Her mood however is quite positive and she has told the youth protection worker on more than one occasion that she prefers this residence to her previous group home. [ 37 ] By all accounts however, the pairing is not perfect. The other youth in her current CRDI resource are lower functioning and she is not interacting with other adolescents as much as she should. [ 38 ] X has complained about two incidents where a youth became out of control to the point that police intervention was required.

It would appear however that X was in her room when these incidents took place and that the youth in question was moved to another resource. [ 39 ] X’s relationship with her grandmother continues to have its ups and downs. X refused to accompany her grandmother on the trip referred to above to visit an aunt.

The grandmother got as far as City B, about an hour away from the rehabilitation centre, and then decided to bring X back to the centre at the child’s request. [ 40 ] X explained to the youth protection worker that her grandmother asks too many questions and denigrates workers and staff at the resource and that this upsets her. [ 41 ] X has refused to visit her grandmother on certain weekends but has gone on others, which appear to have gone well. [ 42 ] Her relationship with her father is also difficult. The father wants to have regular visits and phone calls with his daughter but the latter has often refused.

X points to the fact that her father has personal problems to resolve and that there can be arguments between him and her grandmother that upset her, claims that both the father and the grandmother have denied. Whatever the reasons may be, it is clear that more work needs to be done with both the father and X. [ 43 ] X has seen her mother on occasion and the visits are reported to be positive.

The mother is not consistent in her meetings with the youth protection worker and continues to have difficulties in her personal life, which has led to none of her children being in her care. [ 44 ] The grandmother has continued to work with [Centre A] and appears to have gained insight into how to better deal with her granddaughter. Work at [Centre A] has also been done with X individually and meetings have begun with X and her grandmother together. On occasion, X refuses to attend the meetings.

If they are to continue, and they should, it would involve X missing minimally 45 minutes of school for each meeting attended. The plan currently is for two meetings per week. [ 45 ] Dr. Gignac, the psychiatrist following X, has been apprised of X’s progress, or lack thereof in certain areas, and agrees that she should remain in her current home for approximately the next six months while work continues to be done with X in the rehabilitation centre on the one hand and with X and her grandmother on the other. He notes that X appears calmer and less depressed in her current environment.

Despite it not being the ideal setting for X, not only is she not regressing, her situation is improving. In his view, the CRDI resource is the one that best meets the child’s current needs, in particular the need for a structured environment. He notes that the CRDI staff appear “engaged” and motivated to help X the best they can. [ 46 ] The Director is asking that the Court render a final decision maintaining X in a rehabilitation centre for the next year. Their plan is to maintain her in her current resource and have her attend [School A], which is a five minute drive from the centre.

She would be bused to school. [ 47 ] The grandmother agrees that X attends [School A]. Her plan is to move to the [region A], where the school and resource are located. [ 48 ] The grandmother is hoping to have X return to her care now and if not, as soon as possible. She feels that X is not getting any real help in placement and that the only service being provided is the therapy the family receives through [Centre A]. The grandmother

wants to continue the work done at [Centre A] and have X at home on weekends up to Mondays, as well as one evening per week. She suggests that the Court render an interim order until some time after the next meeting with Dr. Gignac, scheduled for December 6, 2021. [ 49 ] In her client’s name, X’s lawyer argues that X has been affected by the numerous interim decisions and that this makes her anxious. Thus, in her view, the Court should render a final court order. This order should emphasize and allow for the implication of [Centre A] given that it is the only real help the family is receiving.

X’s lawyer is concerned about the resource X is currently entrusted to and feels that it does not meet her needs. X isolates herself and is not interacting socially with peers as much as she should, especially given her diagnoses.

Thus, the order should aim at X’s return to her grandmother as soon as possible and allow for as much access to her grandmother as possible, minimally from Friday to Monday. [ 50 ] For the Court, this is obviously a very difficult situation. [ 51 ] X belongs with her grandmother but can only return once the serious issues that led to her placement have been addressed. [ 52 ] Since X’s placement a year ago, the same types of issues are still present. X will sometimes resist seeing her grandmother or even partake in trips or therapy sessions with her.

X still complains about some of her grandmother’s behaviours, including asking her too many questions and denigrating professionals working with her. Whether these claims are all founded or not, it is not realistic to think that X can be entrusted to her grandmother on a full-time basis. In no time, there would likely be serious conflicts between the two, possible injuries to the grandmother and acting-out by X, with possible harm to herself in the process. [ 53 ] The grandmother is very devoted and has worked extremely hard to get help for her granddaughter. But the grandmother is not only part of the solution.

She is part of the problem. In addition to what X has told different professionals about how her grandmother triggers her reactions, the grandmother has often not been forthright about her difficulties with X, despite having been asked on various occasions to be so, and her collaboration with the Director has not always been up to par. [ 54 ] That said, the work being done by [Centre A] is serious and likely to give dividends. It is supported not only by the DYP but by the child’s psychiatrist as well.

It should be allowed to continue but with whatever accommodations the school can put in place so that the meetings do not adversely affect X’s schooling. [ 55 ] As well, weekend visits (Friday to Sunday) should continue so long as the contacts are positive and that X wants to go. She should be encouraged to do so, but given her age, she should not be forced. [ 56 ] Given the number of interim decisions already rendered and their effect on X, the Court will render a final decision. [ 57 ] Given the considerations above, X will remain in placement, but only until the end of the summer.

This will allow for a full reintegration during the summer if the situation allows.

The Court will also allow the Director proceed with X’s return to her grandmother any time as of March 2022 if they deem that the situation allows. [ 58 ] Contact with the parents and X’s siblings is also to be encouraged, depending on X’s wishes and best interest. [ 59 ] On a final note, the grandmother (supported by X’s lawyer) had raised the issue of the Court declaring that X’s rights had not been respected (“droit lésés”), particularly in relation to her not having been sent to school while in the group home and to the inappropriateness of the CRDI resource she was transferred to.

The parties have however asked the court to put this issue on the backburner for now, those requests having been adjourned sine die. [ 60 ] Transportation to school is no longer an issue for now. However, particular attention continues to be required to ensure that X receives proper services in her rehabilitation centre and that she is not exposed to behaviours that could affect her development.

As well, additional measures will need to be implemented to ensure that X is provided with opportunities to socialize with youth of her choosing. [ 61 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 62 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the Application; [ 63 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still compromised; [ 64 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; [ 65 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director intends to maintain X in her current CRDI rehabilitation centre; [ 66 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that X is provided with opportunities to socialize with youth of her choosing; [ 67 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection take all measures to ensure that X is not exposed to behaviours in the rehabilitation centre that could affect her development; [ 68 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between X and her parents, maternal and paternal grandparents and siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary, taking into account X’s best interest and wishes; [ 69 ] ORDERS that X spend full weekends (Friday to Sunday) with her paternal grandmother provided that her behaviour allows it and that X agrees to the visit; [ 70 ] AUTHORIZES X’s reintegration to her grandmother’s care as of March 1, 2022 if the Director feels that the situation allows; [ 71 ] ENCOURAGES contacts between X and her parents and siblings;

[ 72 ] ORDERS that there be no contact between X and Mr. D and that X’s family members make sure that she is not in contact with him; [ 73 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the attributes of their parental authority in regards to signing consents for X’s medical needs, education, extracurricular activities, travel needs, and applying for a passport, and AUTHORIZES Ms.

C (paternal grandmother) to sign for the child’s consents; [ 74 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parties agree that X will remain in her current school ([School A]); [ 75 ] ORDERS that X be able to attend therapy sessions at [Centre A], up to twice per week and that if impedes on school time, that the DYP or the grandmother approach the school to see what accommodations they can put in place so that the meetings do not adversely affect X’s schooling; [ 76 ] ORDERS that the recommendations from Dr.

Benarroch in X’s psychological assessment be followed; [ 77 ] ORDERS that X be maintained in [School A] for the 2021-2011 academic year; [ 78 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek support services to address his personal issues; [ 79 ] RECOMMENDS that the paternal grandmother partake in skills groups, trainings and self-care activities, as well as support services to better understand her role in X’s life; [ 80 ] ORDERS that the paternal grandmother report immediately and faithfully to the Director of Youth Protection any difficulty that may arise concerning her contacts with X; [ 81 ] ORDERS that the paternal grandmother work collaboratively with all treating professionals; [ 82 ] ORDERS the grandmother not to denigrate the DYP, the rehabilitation centre nor any professionals working with the family in the presence of X; [ 83 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with all service providers, including [Centre A], working with X and her family, to be apprised of attendance and progress; [ 84 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and the family; [ 85 ] THE WHOLE UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2022. [ 86 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 87 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

Signed on October 28, 2021 Me Ivan Lazarov Attorney for the Director Me Claudine Du Sablon Attorney for the child Me Claude Lapointe Attorney for the paternal grandmother Dates of hearing : CL/nl January 25, April 19, July 5 & 8 and September 3 rd , 2021