2022 QCCQ 12073, 2022 QCCQ 12073

Protection de la jeunesse — 227107 2022 QCCQ 12073 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division Nos: 640-41-002459-201 640-41-002461-207 DATE: October 20, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTERS OF: X, born on […],2017 Y, born on […], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father of the child X ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION ( sections 95(1) (2) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , CQLR., c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (ss. 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection applied under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [1] for the extension of a decision rendered o n November 25, 2021, by the Honourable Dominique Wilhelmy, J.C.Q. At that time, she declared that the security and development of the children were still in danger. She entrusted the children to a foster family and took judicial notice that the children were placed together in the same foster family, and would stay there.

She entrusted them until July 31, 2022. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the Director asked that the child X be entrusted to C and D until he reaches the age of 18 years and that the child Y be entrusted to E until she reaches the age of 18 years. The mother was assisted by counsel and admitted the fact that the security and development of the children are still in danger but did not agree with the measures. Counsel for the children had a legal mandate. X's father, B, was duly notified and informed the applicant that he would not be present for this hearing.

The Court authorized the Director to proceed in the absence of the father. All the parties agreed to a joint hearing of the two files. [ 3 ] The mother and Mr. B have a history of conjugal violence issues and there is currently a prohibition of contact between them. Mr. B has been attending the [organism A] once a month according to his probation order. Nonetheless, the father still displays alcohol consumption issues. [ 4 ] The mother’s cooperation with Youth Protection is difficult as she was hostile and verbally abusive with the workers on more than one occasion.

At the hearing, the mother stated that the situation has changed in the last 2 or 3 months. [ 5 ] The mother used to display mental health issues but she stated that she no longer has any, as of now. [ 6 ] In March 2022, the mother went with X to the police station stating that they were being chased by monsters. Following that event, the mother was medevacked as she was in a psychotic state. In April 2022, the mother disclosed to Youth Protection that she was feeling hopeless and that she was not in a state where she could adequately care for the child.

In June 2022, the mother disclosed to Youth Protection that she had recently been admitted to the psychiatric ward for suicidal ideation and was prescribed antipsychotic medication. The mother refused to take this medication. During that same meeting with Youth Protection, the mother made a suicidal speech, displayed symptoms of paranoia, and stated that she could no longer be the mother of the children.

[ 7 ] The measures were ending on July 31, 2022. [ 8 ] On July 27, 2022, a provisional measure was ordered and the file was scheduled for a hearing under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act [2] on November 19, 2022. The reasons why the order exceeds the legal deadline of 60 days are not stated in the minutes. The parents were not present at that hearing. [ 9 ] X's father’s personal issues are currently preventing him from providing a safe and stable environment for the child. He did not mobilize himself to have contact with X. [ 10 ] The Director invoked that, since the last hearing, the mother failed to mobilize herself to have contact with the children.

The applicant explained that the children have attachment issues and that she does not know how the children will react to the mother in the event of contact. The applicant tried to organize videoconferencing between the mother and the children but the mother was unwilling. The applicant would like to have access to the mother's medical file but she has never asked the mother for it. The applicant expects the mother to be consistent with her follow-up concerning her medical situation and to take her medication.

The applicant needs the mother to work on her mental health and to be available to work with them. [ 11 ] It is important to specify that the mother testified at the hearing and that she needed the help of the interpreter. The Court understood that the mother had great difficulty expressing her emotions in English and wondered how the mother could have done so well without the help of an interpreter. The Director alleged that the mother is not cooperating with them. The Court believes that the language barrier is one of the reasons why communication is difficult between the applicant and the mother.

Services were not culturally appropriate for the mother and were not provided in her first language. [ 12 ] The mother explained that she was not available for a long period of time considering that she was hospitalized for a heart attack. She was unable to walk. She could not do anything. The applicant specified the period of hospitalization and we understood that the mother was hospitalized following her heart attack between January 2021 to April 2021. The mother explained that she has worked a lot on herself during the past months. She did a lot.

She has been working on her mental health and had follow-up to control her anger. She sees a social worker once a week and went to Town A to see a psychologist. The mother explained that in the beginning she was not ready to have contact with her children because it was too hard for her to have to bring them back to their foster home. After time had passed, the applicant told the mother that she must first meet her children by videoconference to verify their reaction and start visits gradually.

The mother explained that she was nervous to meet them by videoconference and that if the children cried and she would be unable to reassure them and take them in her arms. The mother stated that she is now ready to see her children by videoconference and that she will explain to them that she would take care of them. She said that she had no money to visit his children down South and that there is nothing she can do. She agrees to give the Director access to her medical file.

She said that she was not aware of the Director's expectations and at this moment she asks that they be explained to her in her first language. [ 13 ] From the evidence, the Court found that no services were offered to the mother following her hospitalization. No attempts to provide cultural services were demonstrated in Court. The applicant did not take any action in the file and let the file drag on. The Director has an obligation to be actively present and not just passively waiting for time to pass. There was no active involvement in this case by the applicant to provide services to the mother.

Moreover, services, if there were any, were not provided in her first language or with the help of an interpreter. [ 14 ] . Since mid-February 2022, the children have been entrusted to the care of a foster family down South. The applicant testified that they searched up North before entrusting the children down South. They made one call on the radio in June 2020, in June 2021 they asked the mother for names. They made a widespread appeal in April 2021 and another in May 2021. They held a family council in September 2021 and nobody came. They were then forced to place the children down South.

In the beginning, the children were both entrusted to the same foster family, namely E. In March 2022, Ms. E found it too difficult to keep X. He reacted negatively to the placement, he was often emotionally dysregulated and he was regularly displaying physically aggressive behaviours. In March 2022, X was entrusted to another foster family, namely C and D. Since this placement, he has not displayed any reactive behaviours, and he is responding well to the structure and routines of his foster home.

The applicant explained that the foster families communicate with each other and that the children had had contact in the past weeks. [ 15 ] The maximum placement period has been reached for both children. [ 16 ] The Director asked to consider the best interest of the children and to entrust them to different foster families until they reach the age of 18 years. The Director claimed that the maximum period has been reached and that we must respect

section 91.1(1) of the Youth Protection Act . [3] Counsel for the children has pleaded that we should grant a short extension and that it is in the best interest of the children to be entrusted together. She argued that the Director has an ongoing obligation to verify if the children could be placed with their mother under section 16(3) of the Federal law. She proposed that we recommend that a psychoeducator meet with the children. Counsel for the mother asked for a short extension to give the mother time to meet with her children.

She argued that the mother was hospitalized and dealing with mental health issues and that the Court should grant a short extension based on the fact that services have not been provided by the Director and the mother is ready to take steps. [ 17 ] Both foster families testified that they would agree to care for the child until the age of 18 years. They are making efforts to maintain the children's cultural needs. The Court believes that they are great families but entrusting the children to these foster families until the age of 18 years does not comply with the provincial and federal laws.

ANALYSIS [ 18 ] Federal law takes precedence over provincial law and cultural continuity is in the best interest of the children. In addition, section 16(3) of the federal law provides that the Director must continually review the child's file to see if there is a possibility of returning him or her to the mother or the community. Cultural continuity is therefore a serious motive and justifies extending the placement for a short time before deciding on the placement until the age of 18 years.

[ 19 ] Under the fourth paragraph of

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act , [4] the Court may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph of

section 91.1(4), if the services have not been provided by the Director. The Court does not have evidence that everything possible was done to give the mother all the services. The services were more on a passive basis, the Director was not proactive in any way. [ 20 ] The mother's testimony was very honest. The Court must consider the steps she had to take following her hospitalization, the fact that she had to deal with mental health issues for a long period and the fact that she wants to cooperate with the applicant.

We must also take into consideration the cultural differences and give the mother the opportunity to communicate in her language. There is clearly a language and communication barrier between the mother and the applicant. [ 21 ] The Court agrees that the foster families are dedicated and present for the children and they will therefore understand that things must be done in the right order.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 23 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision rendered on November 25, 2021; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child X be entrusted to a foster family, namely C and D, until May 31, 2023; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child Y be entrusted to a foster family namely E until May 31, 2023; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children be able to visit each other at least once per month as long as they are living within a reasonable distance of each other; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the children and the children's family have access to a psychoeducator to help with contact between the children and between the children and the mother; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and their parents be determined by the Director as to terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 32 ] ORDERS physical visits between the children and the mother before the end of December 2022 if the situation allows; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother have access to an Inuktitut interpreter at each meeting with the Director of Youth Protection workers; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue her follow-up with Social Services concerning alcohol consumption, mental health issues and anger management issues; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the medical file of the mother; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to give access to her medical file to the Director or Youth Protection; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES the Director or Youth Protection to have access to the attendance reports with social services; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to give access to the attendance reports; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the children receive all the health care and health services that their situations require; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the children meet with a psychoeducator; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and the children’s family; [ 42 ] ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this judgment; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] The whole until May 31, 2023 .

__________________________________ NATHALIE SAMSON, J.C.Q. Mtre Adèle Cyr Cain Lamarre, s.e.n.c.r.l. Counsel for the D.Y.P. Mtre Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the children Mtre Elizabeth Pouliot Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 20, 2022