2019 QCCQ 5318, 2019 QCCQ 5318

Protection de la jeunesse — 195594 2019 QCCQ 5318 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002122-171 DATE: January 18, 2019 (written judgment rendered on March 12, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled 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 November 23, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2001. At that date, the Court declared the security and development in danger and entrusted the youth to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, including principally a Group Home or a detoxification centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre until November 30, 2018.

The Court authorizes the youth’s reintegration with her mother as soon as the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to her parents and recommends that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until [...], 2019 (her majority), with reintegration with her mother when the situation allows it. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger but she disagrees with the measures. She wants her daughter back at home. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented.

He also admits that her security and development are still in danger and also hopes his daughter back with her mother. [ 5 ] X who is now 17 and half years old is present and represented by Me Martineau. She admits that her security and development are still in danger and she wants to be back at home or if the Court order a rehabilitation centre, she asks to be entrusted in City A. Historical situation [ 6 ] Starting on December 16, 2016 , the DYP receives many reports regarding X who consumes alcohol and was frequently passed out.

She was brought to the hospital many times and required close supervision because of her suicidal ideation. [ 7 ] On October 16, 2017 , the Court was seized with a motion for provisional measures and X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre. [ 8 ] On November 23, 2017 , the application for protection was heard. The evidence showed that the mother displayed alcohol consumption issues and that the father was not involved in his daughter’s life. X was involved in a relationship with a violent and abusive man. X still consumed alcohol, she was also violent and still suicidal.

In July 2017, she had an ATV accident while intoxicated and had to be medevac because of her injuries. She was also hospitalized because of her consumption and her suicidal ideation and sometimes required to be placed in the isolation room. On October 6, she was placed at the Group Home. The day after she ran away, but came back by herself. On October 9, she left another time and was nowhere to be found for 16 days. When she came back, it was noted that she had been bitten up. After that, her situation got better and she collaborated well with the DYP worker.

She received a follow-up at the Social Services since 2015, and she developed a good relationship with the worker. The Court declared the security and development of X in

danger [1] and entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until the end of November 2018. Facts [ 9 ] At the hearing, the adolescent appeared very depressed, refusing to take off her hood and refusing to look at the judge turning her back on the undersigned. Her lawyer indicates that she met with her but she considers it would not be appropriate in her state to ask her detailed questions about the allegations of the motion.

For this reason, her lawyer gives the youth’s position only on the measures. [ 10 ] While the father mostly ignores the allegations, the mother mostly admits it. [ 11 ] After the last decision, X stayed at the Group Home of City B. This rehabilitation centre is an open one. On November 27, as she had the right to go outside, she came back drunk. In December, she ran away many times and consumed. [ 12 ] In January 2018, X was arrested and brought to the police station. She tries to light the room on fire with a lighter she had on her and to choke herself with a lace from her shoe.

On January 9, she was entrusted to an intensive unit in City A. [ 13 ] On February 8, she came back in City B. On February 14, she consumes marijuana outside the Group Home. On February 15, she was hospitalized because of her suicidal ideation. On February 19, she ran away and came back by herself on February 28, while intoxicated. On the same day, a warrant was asked but not executed as she came back. [ 14 ] Since March she is entrusted at the Girls Unit in City C which is not a close unit but which offers a higher level of supervision as the Group Home of City B.

As she also has the right to go outside, she admits on April 6, that she consumes marijuana each time she goes outside. [ 15 ] On May 15, a home visit was organized. The DYP worker noted in her report that everything went well even if X said being intoxicated upon her arrival at home. [ 16 ] On May 31, at the Girls Unit she swallowed shampoo. [ 17 ] On July 2, during a home visit she called the DYP worker/Social Services to express that she wishes to die. She was intoxicated and she ran away by the window. The police was called and brought her at the nursing were the anti-suicidal dress was used.

The day after, the DYP workers went to pick her up and take her back in City C. She became violent with them and was sent to the isolation room at the DYP office. She used her shoe lace to strangle herself. They tried to bring her at the airport, but because of her violent behaviour she had been brought back to the YCJA room. Once there, she put the phone wire around her neck. She cut a Coke can and cut herself with the metal and locked her in the toilet.

She was finally brought back to the airport and took her plane for City C. [ 18 ] On August 1, she arrives at the Unit another time intoxicated from a free time. The same day, inside the Unit, she swallowed some screws. [ 19 ] On August 20, while at the Unit, she was high after taking eight pills. [ 20 ] During the month of October, Ms. [Social Worker 1], a new worker was assigned in this file. [ 21 ] At the beginning of October, X went for a home visit. During her stay, she asked to come back in City C earlier. She said that there is something wrong with her family and was unable to express what was wrong.

She wished to change her life, but did not know where to start. After her return at the Girls Unit on October 12, the staff noted that she was not doing well. She expressed her disagree to be back at the unit, but at the same time she did not want to go back to her community because of the consumption and bad influences. On October 19, because of her violent behaviour towards the staff, she had to be restrained. On October 22, she was supposed to appear before the Criminal Court in City B, but it was postponed. At that time, a referral for her to meet with a child psychiatrist was made.

On October 25, she called the DYP worker and said that if she has to go back to City C after the revision of her file by the Youth Chamber, she would run away and commit suicide. [ 22 ] On November 7, as she was at her grandmother’s place for an authorized visit, the DYP arrived. X was crying and displaying suicidal ideation. The social worker on call went to see her. The day after she called the Girls Unit twice telling firstly that she wants to come back earlier and the second time to say that she was highly intoxicated, not safe where she was, using drugs and planning to go to the land alone.

As she did not say where she was, it was impossible to find her. Fortunately she came back by herself on November 10, even if she was only supposed to come back on November 14. [ 23 ] On November 20, she went back in City B as the present revision was supposed to be heard. But because she ran away from the court house, the hearing was postponed. In the evening, she was intoxicated and called her escort to ask to come back at the hotel. She arrived and fall asleep. In the morning she woke up very aggressive and left. She was found the day after by the police and the DYP who brought her at the Group Home of City B.

During the lunch time she broke a plate and cut herself with a piece of it. [ 24 ] Since January 2018, a psychological evaluation is asked. Dr. Joseph Beltempo tried to meet with her in April and in July but she did not collaborate. He tries to meet another time on November 25, but still without success. [ 25 ] As requested in October, Dr. Nadeau, the child psychiatrist came to see her. X spoke about her alcohol consumption issues and her anxiety. She also spoke about the reintegration in her community which is stressful for her, and she opens up about the traumas she suffers from, since her father assaulted her.

Dr. Nadeau spoke with the Girls Unit staff to give them some tools to intervene but Ms. [Social Worker 1] does not know what those tools are. Ms. [Social Worker 1] did not either hear about medication. [ 26 ] In December, after a free time, she came at the Girls Unit saying that she swallowed 14 Tylenol and she was brought to the clinic. The Girls Unit decided to deprive her of any free time outside, but the day after she left the unit and came back 30 minutes after saying that she swallowed a metal piece.

[ 27 ] For Christmas holidays, the previous worker organized access with the mother in City D at relatives’ place thinking that X would be less in contact with consumers in City D than in City B. As the father asked to see his daughter and X accepted it, he also travels with them. Once in City D, the mother, intoxicated, called many times to say that it was not going well and they wished to come back. X travelled back with her father as the mother had no place on the plane. Upon her arrival on December 28, 2018, X went to her mother’s place and ran away.

She came back only on January 4, 2019. [ 28 ] Considering the last home visits organized in a way to start the reintegration of X did not go well, the DYP changes his recommendations and asks that the placement be prolonged until her majority with a reintegration before, if possible. The DYP considers that X is doing well in a well-structured environment and the problem occur only when she is at home. X ever worked as a babysitter at the DYP office and she did very well with the children. Actually she went to school at the Girls Unit and she was also doing very well.

Since she came back on January 4, 2019, nothing wrong was reported despite her high level of anxiety. [ 29 ] According to the DYP, the rehabilitation services are needed to prepare the mother to receive her daughter and to prepare X to her majority with the help of an external educator. And the most important actually is to insure her safety. [ 30 ] X is registered at the adult education and will start on January 21. She is very anxious and an educator from the Girls Unit will be present at school with her.

If she is doing well and finish her secondary IV, she could start the professional training in September 2019. [ 31 ] The reintegration in the community is very anxiety-provoking for her. She has a lot of things to work on to be well prepared and to make sure it will be a success. [ 32 ] Questioned about how X is feeling at the Girls Unit, Ms. [Social Worker 1] answers that as far as she knows, everything is going well. She helps the centre workers a lot. She developed bonds with some of them. She knows that X would like to be back at home, but did not hear about something wrong.

X asks her once to be transferred to City A, but she did not tell her why. Ms. [Social Worker 1] never asked for this transfer, and she knows that it’s very difficult to have a place there. [ 33 ] Regarding the mother’s situation, the revision report indicated [2] : “As X wasn’t living at her mother’s anymore, we don’t have much information about what’s going on in her house, but she said that they are six to live there and everything is going well.” When X comes for home visits, she spends most of the time at relatives’ place.

The mother does not see any difficulty with that as she is an adolescent and she has the right to go where she wants. Once, the mother hides her daughter during a runaway. She was met by the DYP worker and agreed to collaborate if it’s occurred again to provide information to find her and bring her back to the Girls Unit. She was always implicated in her daughter’s life and has very strong bond with her.

The most difficult for her is to manage her alcohol consumption issues and to fully understand the impact of this consumption on her daughter’s situation. [ 34 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], the new worker in the file since October, wrote a complementary report to cover the period between October 19, 2018, and January 2, 2019. She met once with the mother to start the reintegration as planned, but as X ran way, the process was not started and no more meeting took place with the mother. The mother is working full time. She is more controlling her consumption, but she still has difficulty to impose a structure to X.

The bonds between X and her mother are still very good, but they need to work on their communication issues because lots of feelings are not expressed. Concerning the relation with the father, the situation is not clear. Are they still together or are they separated? [ 35 ] The DYP worker will have a meeting with the mother when X is ready to express her wished for her future. As X does not open up, it’s very difficult to know how she feels and what she wants. It was asked to X if she would like to go in another community, for example in City C as her rent would be paid as she goes to school.

X answered that she would like to be back with her mother, so the DYP worker will work on this option. [ 36 ] As for the father, he is not involved at all in his daughter’s life. Ms. [Social Worker 1] went to see him in December to introduce herself. He was sniffing solvents and totally ignored the worker. [ 37 ] X wanted to testify, but the exercise was very difficult for her. She cried a lot. She is not feeling well at the Girls Unit. She said that there is a lot of anger, a lot of dispute and according to her, the staff is not taking care well of them.

X adds that she asks two or three times to be transferred to City A, but nothing is done. [ 38 ] She also says being sad because Ms. [Social Worker 1] always refuses when she asks for a home visit. X says that Ms. [Social Worker 1] is making her feeling sad and angry. She wants to have another worker. [ 39 ] X wants to come back right now in City B. She engages herself to collaborate with an external educator, and she can go to the adult education in City B also. She knows that she can call the Social Services, the DYP worker, her grandmother and her friends if she is not feeling good.

She engages herself to respect all the rules at her mother’s place. She feels safe at her mother’s place, and her friends are able to calm her down. [ 40 ] X explained that she always saw her parents consuming. So when she has the opportunity to consume, she accepts. She describes the very bad relation she has with her father. She does not want him in her life. He physically abused her and her mother. She also feels abandoned by her older brother who did not want to take care of her because she was too young. She has nobody to speak about those traumas and she is not sure she wants to speak about that.

Analysis [ 41 ] As enacted by

section 2.2 of the Youth Protection Act , the primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents. The evidence reveals that the parents failed in their role and put their daughter at risk. The father assaulted her. The mother was also assaulted and was not able to protect her daughter against the violence of the father. They raised X in an environment of consumption, and she considers today that it’s normal for her to consume also.

[ 42 ] X will turn 18 soon and she does not have the tools each parent should teach to his child to prepare him to the adult life. She is depressed, very anxious and put her at risk many times since the last order. [ 43 ] The Court understands that X is very close to her mother and her grandmother and that she misses her family environment a lot. But, even if she will be an adult soon, the Court wants to protect her for the following weeks and it’s not with her mother that she will be protected. [ 44 ] It’s very sad for X.

As she did not grow up in an appropriate environment, she has an urgent need of rehabilitation services and of psychological follow-up. As she has a lot of difficulty to open up, it will be important that she could receive services from a professional with whom she feels confident. [ 45 ] Since Ms. [Social Worker 1] is assigned to this file, the service tends to increase and the Court appreciate seeing that.

Upon her arrival, she worked with the mother on the reintegration process which sadly was not possible because of X’s behaviour and the communication between X and Ms. [Social Worker 1] does not seem to be efficient. [ 46 ] The Court insists on this aspect because the evidence shows that no services were provided to the mother between the last order in November 2017, and the month of October 2018 (11 months). The fact that a child is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre does not justify that a parent does not receive aid, counselling and assistance.

It’s been ordered by the Court and not with any exception. [ 47 ] As enacted at

section 4, the parent’s involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. X was entrusted in a rehabilitation centre because of her behavioural issues, but also because her parents were not able to provide her with the adequate structure. The Court ordered a reintegration if possible. With the parents’ past history, it would be utopic to think that they would be able by themselves. [ 48 ] The Court is also concerned by the recurrence of dramatic events in which X put her at risk since the last order.

It’s obvious that the Girls Unit is not able to provide her with the safe environment she needs. The Court can’t explain how a young girl, which the situation was entrusted to the DYP by the Court, can attempt to her life so many times without any intensification of supervision. How can she be hospitalized for suicidal ideation and being authorized to leave the hospital without any follow-up? How can she be authorized to go outside of the Girls Unit after coming back intoxicated and bitten up? How can she have access to screws in a rehabilitation centre?

How can she have a lighter and try to light the police station on fire? How can she run away so many times and for so long period when everybody knows that she put her at risk even in a supervised environment? Why do we wait nine days before asking a mandate when we know that a suicidal adolescent run away four days after being hospitalized for suicidal ideation? [ 49 ] The word “suicidal” was mentioned many times in the report and in the complementary report. Too many parents in the North suffered from the loss of their children by suicide. What is done to stop this tragedy?

The Court is very concerned by the facts that this dramatic phenomenon seems to be trivialized. So the Court can’t explain that anything has been done before, to transfer X in a closed unit where she could receive the appropriate services as she requested and as she needs. Even if she expresses her wish to go back home, her level of anxiety and the calls she made to shorten her home visits clearly indicate that she knows she is not ready to go back.

Her heart wants to go back home, but her reason says something different. [ 50 ] As reminded to the worker, in November 2017, the Court authorized X to entrust a detoxification centre. Despite the many events where X was intoxicated and most of time highly intoxicated, nothing was done to give her the opportunity to resolve her issues. She will be an adult soon and she will continue to live with this addiction, and without the DYP involved anymore. As many other adults in the North, she will struggle with her addiction and will need to take the steps by herself because it was not done before.

Do we really think that this circle will stop by the wave of a magic wand? [ 51 ] Considering the lack of services, the lack of supervision and the non-respect of the last Court order, the Court will recommend the Commission des Droits de la Personne et de la Jeunesse to investigate in this file.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 52 ] GRANTS the application; [ 53 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the youth X, born on [...], 2001, are still in danger; [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 55 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that X be entrusted in the same rehabilitation centre she even was in City A; [ 56 ] AUTHORIZES the reintegration of X under her mother’s care; [ 57 ] AUTHORIZES X to attend a therapy centre alone or with her mother; [ 58 ] ORDERS that X receive health care and health services required by her situation; [ 59 ] ORDERS that a psychological evaluation of X be performed and all recommendations be followed, including other evaluations which could be recommended by the psychologist; [ 60 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the psychological evaluation be performed by a women specialist and the follow-up also if required; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a drug and alcohol assessment of X be performed and that the recommendations be followed, including follow- up and detoxification centre if required;

[ 62 ] ORDERS that any evaluation made and recommendations relevant for the rehabilitation centre workers who intervene with X, be communicated to them; [ 63 ] ORDERS that the parents and X take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 64 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and her parents; [ 65 ] ORDERS that a close follow-up being done by the Director of Youth Protection with the mother in the way to progressively reintegrate X under her care; [ 66 ] If X agrees, ORDERS that her psychological evaluation be explained to the mother to make sure she understands well the needs of her daughter; [ 67 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of X and without any violent behaviour; [ 68 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol issues; [ 69 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents be supervised by Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, modalities and degree of supervision; [ 70 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and X be organized in person at the rehabilitation centre; [ 71 ] ENCOURAGES frequent contacts by phone or any electronic way; [ 72 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any other recommendations; [ 73 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 74 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court order if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 75 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 76 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the child Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Dates of hearing: January 17 and 18, 2019