2020 QCCQ 12769, 2020 QCCQ 12769

Protection de la jeunesse — 209338 2020 QCCQ 12769 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001898-151 DATE: April 15, 2020 (written judgment rendered on December 8, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 of the A C.Y.P.C. working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise a decision rendered on April 15, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2005.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent in the Group Home of Town B and in a foster family in Town B, until April 30, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his father and that he be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and be gradually integrated in a foster family, namely Mr. C as soon as the situation allows it, for a period of one year. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The father is present and represented by Me Villemur.

He ignores most of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] X, who is 15 years old, is present and represented by Me Neptune. He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations. History of the situation [ 5 ] On March 19, 2015 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X and his sister to a foster family. [ 6 ] On May 7, 2015 , the Court heard the application for protection. X was 10 years old. The mother passed away in January 2011. After the death of the mother, the grandmother took care of him until September 2014, when she also passed away.

After X and his sister were moved from one family member to another one, but no one was reliable enough. Finally, they went to live with an aunt, Ms. D, in Town C. The aunt was hesitant about a long-term involvement with the children, but she accepted. The father hopes to have a new house soon and to be able to have the children back with him. The children developed some attachment problems. The Court declares that the security and development of the child are endangered and entrusted him to a foster family until the end of January 2016. [ 7 ] On December 9, 2015 , the Court revised the decision.

After being with a foster family in Town C who decided not to continue, the children were entrusted with Ms. E, an aunt who also gave up. They were entrusted to a cousin for two nights, but it became necessary to separate Carole and X. Carole was entrusted to a foster family in Town A, and X went back with E. The father could not go to see his son because he is at risk to be assaulted if he goes there. The father reduced his alcohol consumption, but always accepted consumers in his place. After a few behavioural issues, X is doing better.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until August 17, 2016. [ 8 ] On August 17, 2016 , an emergency hearing was held and the Court maintained the previous measures.

[ 9 ] On September 15, 2016 , the Court revised the decision. The evidence showed that X was in a new foster family in Town A since June 2016. The father continued to improve his parental skills, but still needed help to impose some limits to people who abuse of his insouciance. X needed a lot of structure. His behaviour could be unpredictable, and he had to work on his self-esteem. The Court entrusted X to a foster family until January 27, 2017, with a reintegration with the father as soon as the situation allows it.

The Court also ordered that the services of an external educator be provided, the whole until March 1, 2017. [ 10 ] On January 9, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a foster family. [ 11 ] On 27 and 28 of February 2017 , the Court was supposed to hear the application for revision, but the Court could not travel and X was nowhere to be found. The Court maintains the previous measures. [ 12 ] On May 11, 2017 , the Court finally heard the application for revision. X was 12 years old. His behaviour deteriorated since the last order.

He consumed alcohol and drugs, he was sniffing gas, he was not going to school, and he often slept at his father’s place without previous authorization. He was not living at his foster family place since February 2017. He ran away for two months before being found and entrusted to his uncle and his aunt, who finally renounced to keep him. They also had alcohol consumption issues.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until November 20, 2017. [ 13 ] On October 2, 2017 , the Court was seized with an emergency hearing and entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre. [ 14 ] On November 2, 2017 , the application for revision was heard. The evidence showed that the children were living at the uncle and aunt’s place (F and G), but in July 2017, the couple was so intoxicated that the children had to be removed. On July 24, 2017, when the DYP announced to X that he would entrust a foster family in Town C, the adolescent ran away for a few weeks.

A warrant was issued and he was found on September 27, 2017, and entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. The father helps his son to hide from the DYP services. The father was always the victim of his insouciance and was abused by other people. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre until November 30, 2018, with a minimal regime of access rights. [ 15 ] On November 21, 2018 , the undersigned was seized with an application for revision. X was still at the Group Home in Town B. He was very confused regarding the place he would like to live.

He liked being in Town B, but no foster families were available there, and in those circumstances, he would prefer to stay at the Group Home. To allow the DYP to find the appropriate foster family, the Court maintained X to the Group Home with integration in a foster family as soon as possible. [ 16 ] On April 15, 2019 , the undersigned revised the situation. The evidence showed that X remained at Town B Group Home and he did very well. He also performed well at school. The home visits went well. X expresses the desire to be in a foster family in Town B, but it was very difficult to find one.

X was assessed by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist. Dr. Beltempo mentions among others: […] Test data seems to indicate difficulties more with attentional problems and with unresolved grief reactions to the death of his Grandmother who raised him. […] […] X has strong feelings of abandonment and grief stemming from the loss of his Grandmother, often feeling alone. It would be helpful to give him an opportu-nity or a place to develop a psychological alliance with perhaps a psychologist or counsellor to better cope with loneliness and low self-esteem.

I am not convinced that the data shows any kind of attachment disorder, however, one must be concerned with an attentional deficit. X appears to be somewhat active, perhaps overactive and has self-described as having attentional problems. This assessment was limited by time and availability of psychometric tools. We highly recommend that X be followed-up by a psychologist in Social Services or a social counsellor in order to increase his self- esteem address the grief reactions to his Grandmother’s death. Secondly, he needs to learn healthy strategies to cope with conflict and social skills.

We are not yet convinced that he might have ADHD however, we should monitor this over time and perhaps if needed he would be assessed by a neuropsychologist . He has a very creative and imaginative mind. X is a good candidate for psychological intervention and has some degree of insight although he is more action oriented. Using a skills-building approach with X would go a long way in helping him to seek his place in the future. The Court noted that the situation continues to evolve positively. X was doing much better, and a lot of questions regarding his needs had been answered.

The Court maintained X to a rehabilitation centre with progressive integration in a foster family. The Court also ordered the implementation of Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations, including the psychological follow-up already requested. Facts [ 17 ] Since the last decision, X remained in Town B and went to school on a daily basis in French immersion. The fact that he had before an English schooling and also his learning difficulties cause him some frustration and a lack of motivation. Doing so, he integrated the IPL class.

He was doing much better since then. [ 18 ] Regarding his behaviour, nothing wrong was reported. He stopped smoking cannabis and he does not drink alcohol anymore. [ 19 ] As before, X expresses the desire to stay in Town B instead of going to a foster family in another village. [ 20 ] In February 2020, Mr. C, his educator at the Group Home, informed the DYP about his interest to foster X. Mr. C knows X for a while and considers being able to be a good model for him. X was very happy with this possibility. The evaluation from the foster family department was requested. The DYP offered to Mr.

C to integrate X at his place even if the process was not completed, but Mr. C was also waiting for a bigger house. He agreed to foster X as soon as he has his new house. [ 21 ] Regarding his psychological follow-up, the DYP made requests to the CLSC and X was put on a waiting list. But the DYP was informed on September 9, that it could take one year. [ 22 ] At the moment of writing the revision report dated on March 31, 2020, the DYP worker read the previous decision and doing

so, realized that the psychological follow-up was a Court order. [ 23 ] The Court questioned the DYP worker about the steps done to make sure that he could receive the service without waiting one year, considering this service has been ordered by the Court. At that moment, the current DYP worker was not assigned to the file, but she confirms that the previous worker filed the form requested by the CLSC and followed the steps imposed by the Social Services procedure, but no other pressure was put. Analysis [ 24 ] Obviously, X’s situation remains endangered.

As he recognizes it, the father is still unable to resume the care of his son. [ 25 ] In 2018, the undersigned rendered a decision and noted at that time that X did not receive the service he was supposed to and he was suffering a lot.

Six months later, the undersigned revised again the situation and underlined the intensity of service provided this time by the former DYP worker, Ms. [social worker 2] to make sure that X could finally receive the medical services he needed. [ 26 ] Thanks to those steps taken by Ms. [social worker 2], X benefitted from a psychological evaluation and recommended a personal follow-up. [ 27 ] After one year, we have no other choice than to conclude that these recommended services were not provided as nothing was done to make sure that he could receive it. [ 28 ] When the DYP concludes that the situation and development of a child are endangered and the Court confirms this declaration, the situation of the child is entrusted to the DYP for the execution of the decision.

The purpose of the services to be rendered is to put an end to the situation in which the child is in danger and to make sure that such situation will not reoccur. [ 29 ] This objective, prescribed by

section 2.3

a) YPA, is the same everywhere in the province of Quebec. [ 30 ] Moreover, as prescribed by

section 92 YPA, to reach this objective, the health organization has to facilitate the DYP to access the appropriate services. Refusing to take steps to obtain the service, or neglecting to obtain the services constitute an encroachment of rights prescribed at

section 8 YPA. [ 31 ] As Justice Bédard wrote in 2000 [1] : […] la mesure ordonnée peut, avant de recevoir application, nécessiter un délai lié à l’organisation des services, mais ce délai ne doit pas être de nature à rendre la mesure ordonnée sans effet. Ni équivaloir à faire en sorte que le jugement du Tribunal soit sans effet. En somme, un délai d’exécution auquel peut s’apparenter un outrage au Tribunal. [ 32 ] Speaking about

section 92 YP, Justice Bédard mentions: 30 Sauf appel ou révision de la décision, il s’agit d’une responsabilité qui entraîne une obligation de résultat. […] [ 33 ] Finally, Justice Bédard insists on the fact that children followed by DYP are entitled to receive services more urgently than other children who are not followed by the DYP: 32 Autrement dit, le citoyen dont la situation n’est pas prise en charge par l’État, le citoyen dont la situation n’est pas judiciarisée peut fort bien requérir un suivi psychologique et devoir attendre. Si ce citoyen considère que le délai d’attente est trop long, il peut loger une plainte selon la procédure prévue à la

Loi sur les services de santé et services sociaux . 33 Mais un enfant dont la situation sociale amène une intervention de la Directrice de la protection, des mesures d’urgence, une judiciarisation, une déclaration de compromission et une décision du Tribunal qui comprend des mesures pour corriger la situation, ne peut certainement pas se retrouver sur un pied d’égalité, par exemple, avec un enfant dont la situation n’a jamais été signalée à la directrice. 34 Penser le contraire reviendrait à affirmer qu’il n’y a aucune différence de traitement entre une situation de compromission et une situation qui ne l’est pas. 35 Se poserait alors la question de la pertinence de signaler une situation, si aucune différence ne peut être perçue dans le traitement. [ 34 ] The Court shares this position which was also shared recently by Justice Dutilly [2] .

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS this application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2005, are still endangered; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the rights of X were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection under

section 2.3, 8 and 92 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth be gradually integrated in a foster family, namely Mr. C as soon as the situation allows it;

[ 40 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the father report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures he applies in his own regard or in the youth’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are endangered; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the youth and the father report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the youth attend a school or another place of learning or participates in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the youth and his family receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the youth; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through the Social Services concerning his personal issues; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth and his family; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Inuulitsivik C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 50 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE for one year.

AS CORRECTIVE MEASURE: [ 52 ] ORDERS that all the recommendations set out by Dr. Beltempo be followed without any delay; [ 53 ] AUTORIZES the psychologist or the counsellor to have access to a copy of Dr. Beltempo’s evaluation; [ 54 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notify to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse and to the Commission Laurent; [ 55 ] ORDERS that a censored copy be notified to the Director of the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux A. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the youth Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the father Date of hearing: April 15, 2020