2018 QCCQ 13801, 2018 QCCQ 13801

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810754 2018 QCCQ 13801 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000599-149 DATE: October 30, 2018 (written judgment rendered on December 21, 2018) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2003 [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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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 review a decision rendered on January 31, 2018, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003. At that date, the Court declared his security and development still in danger and entrusted him to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends extending this decision until July 31, 2019. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She admits most of the alleged facts and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] X who is now 15 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune. He also admits most of the alleged facts but contests the measures and asks to be entrusted to his sister, Ms. B. Historical situation [ 5 ] On January 20, 2015 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. His mother suffered from a mental illness, and X was afraid of her. He was 11 years old and the DYP was involved in his life since September 2014, because of unreasonable methods of upbringing.

He was living with his sister, B but was in a conflict of loyalty between his mother and his sister. He was doing very well at school. Justice Gravel declared that the security and development of the youth are in danger under

section 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act and entrusted him to a foster family namely Ms. B until August 31, 2015. [ 6 ] On March 22, 2015 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological assessment report for the mother. Her overreactions and irritability raised concerns and the DYP worker suspected Bipolar Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder and had questions regarding the parental capacities. Dr.

Beltempo concluded that “she presents with significant cognitive challenges (very low intellectual potential) so her parental capacity seems limited.” He added that “we must question very seriously her cognitive capacities in parenting an 11 years old who I did not meet. She presents with significant signs of bipolar symptoms as well as Borderline Personality symptoms overshadowed by a history of sexual abuse and cognitive limitations.” He also “strongly suggested that this boy be psychologically assessed to rule out Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The other impression is that A has had a combination of ongoing sexual abuse (unresolved trauma) by her teacher starting at age 10, compounded by cognitive limitations, and parental and sibling rejection. In her favour she trusts only her uncle and so I would suggest strongly that any form of counselling or intervention should perhaps include her uncle." [ 7 ] Finally, Dr. Beltempo gave his position regarding a return of X under the care of her mother and said: Before we return the care of X to A, it would be important that the following recommendations be considered.

One, I would strongly recommend a Psychiatric Assessment to rule out Bipolar Disorder and to determine any other possible disorders. Two, I recommend very strongly that X be assessed or screened psychologically and that we verify whether his limitations are in question. Three, I recommend individual follow-up be done with Social Services, which could include her uncle, to help A process some of her problems,

such as feelings of rejection from family and concerns about her granddaughter and concerns about parenting in particular. Next, I am concerned about her marijuana dependence and its negative effects on her memory. However she is not anywhere near motivated in changing that long-standing chronic dependence. I suspect that she is in the pre-contemplative stage of change. I strongly recommend parent-child counselling with a Social Services counselor to at least see if she would attend any meetings within the next 3 months to measure her progress accordingly.

Otherwise I do not recommend that this boy be returned to her care unless supervised. I understand that A can be difficult, at times belligerent and difficult to manage her own emotions; she needs long-term support in a process of getting help for herself before she can take care of her son, who himself seems to have learning and behavioural challenges as well. [ 8 ] On November 9, 2015 , a motion for revision was filed. The mother did not improve her situation and had a very bad behaviour at the hearing. X was doing very well with his sister. The Court entrusted him to Ms.

B with reintegration in the mother’s care if the situation allows. [ 9 ] On November 8, 2016 , X was still doing very well under his sister’s care and everything went well at school. The mother was still very impulsive. She had regular contact with her son. X’s situation being still in danger, Justice Leduc ordered his placement in the foster family of B until June 30, 2017. [ 10 ] On September 5, 2017 , while X continued to do very well for two years with his sister, the sister at B’s place raised some concerns. She witnessed her boyfriend sexually abusing their daughter when he was intoxicated.

No life plan was made for X and the situation at home needed to be investigated and B to receive help. Justice Leduc entrusted X to a foster family until July 31, 2018. [ 11 ] On January 31, 2018 , it was alleged that X sexually abused a little girl. B also said that some other behavioural disturbances appeared. The charges for sexual assault were dropped off. B explained that she can’t continue to take care of X. He was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre under provisional measures. The rehabilitation centre staff reported that he was doing very well and at school also.

That being said, no other foster families accepted to have him because of the allegations. Justice Lecompte entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family if the situation allows it. Facts [ 12 ] Since the last hearing, X stayed at the rehabilitation centre in City A. He starts going back to school. He has good learning capacities but considering he missed a lot of school, it was more difficult for him. [ 13 ] X made some improvement at the centre and at school.

He is listening to the rules much more. [ 14 ] The DYP worker recommends the Court to maintain X at the rehabilitation centre. Despite his improvement, he still needs structure because he ran away and he has to understand the importance to respect the rules. X has to work on four aspects: sexual consent, emotional regulation, schooling and self-esteem. [ 15 ] Regarding the running away, the evidence shows that he ran away three times after home visits including once for more than one month. He stayed in City B rather than taking his plane to go back to City A.

The Court has concerns about the supervision provided by the DYP and how X could find a place to stay in another village (he always lives in City

C) for a period of two weeks without being found by the DYP. The DYP worker explained to the Court that she asked family members where he could be, she asked her co-worker in City B to have a look in houses she thought he could be and she finally asked the police to look for him. Questioned about why it was so long, she answered, “Honestly I don’t really know, probably because he was really good to hide, I guess.” And questioned if he knows enough person in City B to be able to find a place to stay she answers: “Yes, you should ask him about that.” [ 16 ] B received X during the home visits.

She has a new house since beginning of 2018, and wishes to take care of him after his stay in a rehabilitation centre. [ 17 ] A home visit is scheduled for Christmas holidays. If everything goes well, the DYP plans to start the reintegration. X really wants to go to live with his sister. Analysis [ 18 ] X was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre because of the allegations of sexual abuse. Even if the charges were dropped off, the evidence shows that X need sexual education.

Her sister B had some concerns and she did well by intervening quickly. [ 19 ] X improved a lot since he is at the rehabilitation centre and he is on the right way for a reintegration. The placement is required to ensure that the reintegration will be a success. Her sister still wants to have him back at home and the Court is convinced that if she considers he would not be ready, she would be able to tell it. [ 20 ] As mentioned previously, the Court has serious concerns regarding the supervision provided by the DYP when X was supposed to be back at the centre. He was able to run away once.

It’s too much, but he ran away another time for more than one month. After being found he ran away another time. How can it be possible? His situation was entrusted to the DYP for the execution of the last order. Not only, the DYP assume the responsibility of X but considering the DYP knew that X is able to run away, the DYP was supposed to increase the supervision. Fortunately, nothing wrong had happened. [ 21 ] The Court also wishes to remind that Dr. Beltempo, in 2015, mentioned the risk that X could suffer from FASD.

Knowing if he is suffering or not of this disorder would help the DYP worker to intervene with him. The Court will order to know more about this situation, because if he is suffering from that since 2015, he was supposed to receive appropriate services. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS this application;

[ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the youth be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, with a reintegration at his sister’s place, Ms. B, as soon as the situation allows it; [ 25 ] ORDERS that home visits be organized as frequently as possible at B’s place; [ 26 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and services required by his situation notably an evaluation to determine if he suffers from a FASD and follow all the recommendations made by the professionals; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the youth, the mother and Ms.

B receive the services of an external educator after the reintegration process if needed; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her past traumas, drug issues as well as her personal issues; [ 31 ] ENCOURAGES the mother to continue her follow-up with her psychiatrist and to follow his recommendations; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the youth and the mother, are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the youth, the mother as well as Ms.

B; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to do an investigate in this file and INVITES the Commission to make any recommendations any other; [ 35 ] 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; [ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until July 31, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 30, 2018