2021 QCCQ 15269, 2021 QCCQ 15269

Protection de la jeunesse — 218765 2021 QCCQ 15269 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000588-142 DATE: September 21, 2021 (written judgment rendered on November 26, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] & [SOCIAL WORKER 2], Youth Protection workers, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicants and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and THE PUBLIC CURATOR, located at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ 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 prolong a decision rendered on May 13, 2020, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with a possibility of reintegration with a significant person or a foster family if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends that the youth be entrusted to Mr. B until June 25, 2022.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is under curator, she is absent, but represented by Me Nada Boumeftah. She ignores most of the alleged facts and she would prefer that her son stay with her. [ 4 ] X who is now 17 years old is present and represented Me Sinnett. He ignores most of the alleged facts and he agrees with the measures. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On February 1, 2012 , the situation of X was reported to the DYP and measures were applied. At that time, his biological mother had assaulted him while his mother was in Town A for medical reason.

The Social Services were in the process to obtain a tutorship for the mother. X was entrusted to his brother, B who lived in the same house. As B was taking good care of the child, the child’s file was closed one year later. [ 6 ] On July 8, 2014 , the situation of X, who was already entrusted to his brother B, was submitted to the Court. The mother, A, following an important illness which impaired her cognitive capacities, was under a tutorship. She was living at B’s place with her other children.

The situation of X and his siblings improved a lot since they were placed, but on December 3, 2013, B informed the DYP that he had conjugal difficulties and was consuming drugs and alcohol. B was conscious that this situation has an impact on his siblings. He told the Court he wants to resolve his issues. X showed behavioural disturbances. He was not going to school, not respecting the authority, stealing, and had aggressiveness and anger management issues. The Court declared the security and development of X endangered [1] and entrusted him to his brother B.

The Court also ordered a psychological or psychiatrist assessment. [ 7 ] On February 17, 2015 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological evaluation. The psychologist explained that X is the biological son of C, who physically abused him. He was adopted by his aunt, A. Dr. Beltempo concludes as follows: X nevertheless does show some characteristics consistent with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, most likely alcohol related. We do not have any data yet as to the confirmation of pre-natal exposure to alcohol however we notice partial facial characteristics. I would recommend Dr.

Kent Saylor at the Montreal Children’s Hospital. X would also need more specific intellectual assessment by a

Psychologist working with Dr. Saylor at the Children’s Hospital. We cannot go ahead with this referral until the DYP delegate obtains confirmation from the Mother that she used alcohol or other drugs during the pregnancy. Secondly, we understand that X has difficulties with limits, boundaries, disruptive behaviors and aggression. This is most likely a reaction to significant neglect and physical abuse by adults, thus engendering a fear-based personality, highly sensitive to rejection and abandonment. X has an anxious attachment along with fears of strong rejection and post-traumatic stress.

As noted X also has difficulty sleeping (insomnia) along with fears of rejection and dysthymia. For these difficulties I strongly suggest that he be referred to a counselor/therapist in Social Services of Town B as soon as possible so that he can be supported in this process. If necessary I would also highly recommend that both Foster parents support him and attend some of these sessions as necessary.

Overall it is my understanding through the Social Worker that X may have learning difficulties and although this was not the subject or the focus of my assessment, it is highly recommended that X be referred to the School Psychologist in the Town B educational system in order to rule out any learning problems related to schooling and follow all recommendations as needed. Lastly I would recommend a medical referral to rule out visual problems, possibly strabismus. In conclusion, X has some very positive qualities that at this stage should be supported.

I am concerned that if he does not receive any social and psychological interventions that he may be attracting negative attention and display more serious difficulties such as Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. [ 8 ] On June 16, 2015 , the DYP asked the Court to review the placement at B’s place in order to verify the real engagement of the brother with X and his siblings. X agreed. B was not living anymore with his partner.

The Court prolonged the placement with the brother and ordered a follow-up with Social Services regarding his past traumas and his potential FASD, the whole until October 2015. [ 9 ] On October 15, 2015 , the Court noted that everything went well at the brother’s place. He collaborated well with the DYP. X still displayed behavioural disturbances, but not at school. X refused to meet with the psycho-educator from school.

The Court entrusted him to his brother for one year. [ 10 ] On November 15, 2016 , as everything continued to go well and B agreed to keep X, the Court entrusted him to his brother until he reaches his majority. The mother, A, was still living with B. [ 11 ] On February 1, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for revision. B disengaged himself and X was living with his sister D since August 10, 2017. X still displayed behavioural disturbances, and he is smoking marijuana on a regular basis.

In March 2018, he should go to Labrador with his aunt (biological mother) and his cousin in a therapy to address his drugs addiction problem. C, his biological mother lived in the same house. The Court entrusted X to his sister D and ordered the services of an external educator until January 1, 2019. [ 12 ] On June 26, 2018 , the Court was seized another time as many problems occurred in the household. The biological mother had been intoxicated many times and was aggressive towards the adoptive mother A, X and D.

In April 2018, the DYP was informed that D had alcohol consumption issues and that she had been abusive towards X. The Court entrusted him to his aunt, Ms. E until March 20, 2019. [ 13 ] On September 12, 2018 , provisional measures were rendered and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 14 ] On October 31, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that X had important behavioural issues (consumption of marijuana, not respecting the curfew, stealing, poor school attendance). He was regularly at his mother’s place without authorization. Ms. E renounced to continue to foster him.

The biological mother was homeless in Town A. The Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation centre with a progressive reintegration in a foster family as soon as possible. The Court also ordered that a psychological evaluation be performed and various measures until June 30, 2019. [ 15 ] On June 14, 2019 , the Court revised the situation again. The youth did well at the rehabilitation centre until he came for a home visit in Town B in February, when he decided to run away. In June when the Court proceeded, X was still running away.

The psychological evaluation ordered by the Court was not performed as no request was made. The Court entrusted the youth a rehabilitation centre until June 30, 2020, and reiterate the order for a psychological evaluation and recommendations to be followed. [ 16 ] On February 20, 2020 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological evaluation. His recommendations were the following: Although X does not feel motivated to change anything about his marijuana use, he was very proud that he did not use alcohol.

We would recommend that he sees a drug and alcohol worker (Social Services) for prevention/educational purposes and that possibly they could work on his motivation to reduce his consumption. Unfortunately, one major challenge is that X comes from family system (his brother who encourages him by giving him money to buy marijuana) which undermines any need for change. In addition, there was no one at home to apply any kind of negative consequences for him to change. So, for these reasons, an educational preventive type of goal would seed a change.

If there are future negative consequences (or crises) from his marijuana use then we should intervene and make him think of the risk-benefits model of change . Ultimately, X would need a higher level of structure which would support a need for change. [ 17 ] On May 13, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was still unable to care for the child due to her health issues. X was entrusted back to the rehabilitation centre after his running away. With the proper supervision, X was able to do very well and to perform at school.

The Court entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre with a possibility of integration with a significant person or a foster family. The Court also ordered that the youth receive services from an addiction counsellor the whole until June 30, 2021. [ 18 ] On June 11, 2021 , the Court entrusted the youth to a foster family on provisional measures. Facts and analysis [ 19 ] After the last provisional measures, the youth was entrusted to Ms. F as foster family, but he was rarely there. He said preferring going to his mother’s place where his brother B also lives. He explained not being comfortable at Ms.

F’s place. [ 20 ] On September 9, 2021, the adolescent was met again to convince him to reside at his foster mother’s place. He confirms that he

really not want to go, but he said being motivated to find a job. The same day, the DYP worker helps him to file the application to receive a social insurance number. He immediately asked for a job at [Company A]. [ 21 ] The DYP worker explains that considering the age of the youth, the objective is to help him to gain his autonomy and to be prepared for his adult life. The DYP worker mentions that since the last provisional measures and despite the non-respect of the Court order, X did not make any trouble in the community.

The DYP is to the opinion that entrusting X under his brother’s care would prevent him from running away and will help to obtain his collaboration. [ 22 ] The Court shares this point of view, but hope that the appropriate verification were made before offering such plan. Considering the absence of further evidence, the Court does not have many options. This one is the one which will probably permit the most collaboration.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to his brother Mr. B; [ 26 ] ORDERS that X, his mother and Mr. B take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are endangered; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and his mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive the services of an external educator on a regular basis until the end of the actual measures; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 32 ] THE WHOLE until June 25, 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 Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 21, 2021