2021 QCCQ 15238, 2021 QCCQ 15238

Protection de la jeunesse — 219044 2021 QCCQ 15238 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 640-41-002529-201 DATE: October 20, 2021 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2022) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 and prolong a decision rendered on November 27, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2010. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered, entrusted the child to a foster family, and took judicial notice that the child was currently entrusted to his maternal grandmother. The DYP planned to maintain him there.

The Court authorized a gradual reintegration at the mother’s place as soon as possible, the whole until November 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents, requires an early revision and asks that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre with a gradual reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, until July 20, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Angèle Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she disagrees with the placement in a rehabilitation centre. She asks that her son be entrusted immediately to a foster family and she also contests the withdrawal of the attributes of parental authority. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. The Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] The child is now 10 ½ years old. He is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered and he agrees with the measures.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On November 27, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The evidence showed that the situation of the family was known since June 16, 2019, following the reception of a report regarding a situation of neglect in terms of educational needs and a situation of physical abuse on the part of the mother. A first voluntary measure was signed, and the child remained under the mother’s care.

Another report of physical abuse from the mother was received and the child was entrusted to a foster family (maternal great-aunt) under a new voluntary measures from February to November 2020. The child was known to have some academic difficulties and to be aggressive sometimes with his friends. Between July and October 2020, a few events of violence on the child’s sibling from the father part were reported. The conjugal violence between the parents remained an important issue. The father has an anger management issue and suffers from schizophrenia for which he does not always take his medication.

The father was in and out of jail. During the last months, the child and his siblings were entrusted under the care of their maternal grandmother and they were doing well. At the hearing, the father was again in jail for sexual assault. The mother is doing better when the father is detained, she receives regular services for her issues and the DYP was confident that she could resume the care of their children soon. Indeed, the contacts increased every week to take into consideration the important improvements of the mother.

[ 7 ] The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family. The Court took judicial notice that the DYP planned to maintain the child at his maternal grandmother’s. The Court authorized a gradual reintegration with the mother, the whole until November 30, 2021. Facts [ 8 ] From November 2020 to April 2021, X remained under his maternal grandmother’s care. Everything went well at the beginning, but starting in February, the child had difficulty to listen to the rules and was regularly fighting with his brother.

A respite was provided to the grandmother, and X went a few days at Ms. C. After a few days, the grandmother said being ready to have him back, but in April the situation was too difficult to handle and the child was transferred at Ms. C until the court hearing in August 2020. X had developed very positive bonds with Ms. C. [ 9 ] In April, Dr. Beltempo, psychologist, signed a psychological report. The purpose was to explore whether the child has any precursors for mental issues. Dr. Beltempo concluded as follows: In

summary, X is a child who is above average in cognitive functioning. He has a number of emotional scars or painful events due to being physically abused by his Father who has schizophrenia. He has a relatively good bond with his Mother, but he is very sensitive and ashamed of his Father being in and out of jail and having such a poor relationship with him. It seems like X is searching for male identification or a role model. It would be wonderful if we could find a male figure for him, such as a big Brother, a Social Worker or a Psycho-educator who could do activities with him.

He has an imaginative, altruistic and understanding of the world. He takes care of others and is genuinely concerned for the welfare of the others. X is very well in tune with emotional pain and abuse. X has a very caring attitude for others, which is consistent with being parentified. In the assessment, we found little evidence of X having issues around attachment. Most likely he suffers from trauma-based anxiety, low self-esteem, and at times depression. We strongly recommend that a psycho-educator become involved with activities that are action based but which have at the same time a therapeutic goal.

The goal, of course, would be to help him find ways to regulate his emotions and use the emotion focused trauma therapeutic approach, with a psycho-educator. We were not entirely convinced of the role of the Art Therapist since he was angry at his last session, but we would leave that up to him whenever he feels ready to go back to Art Therapy. It is not contra-indicated. X should also be supported for activities related to school.

Lastly, I would think that the psycho-educator could provide psychoeducation on growing up in an alcoholic family system; to be provided with reading materials on children who grow up in an alcoholic family system, so that he could feel less alone. In addition, X would benefit, when the Mother is psychologically ready for him, to have a healing family therapy session with her and his brothers to improve communication and stop the violence. In order to answer the last question about his mental health; for the time being X is at risk for anxiety and depression. He denied hearing any voices or talking to himself.

The clinical information provided, test evidence and interview suggest that X is fully capable of engaging in a therapeutic alliance or relationship. However, he is deemed as very fragile, and needs to process the trauma at a very slow pace , otherwise, we risk of losing his hope for reparative attachment and his capacity to change some of those feeling and emotions.

After speaking with the Social Worker, Ms. [social worker 1], there is a planned family council/intervention for April 28, 2021, which would include the Mother, A, respite Foster Mother, C, and the official Foster parent the Grandmother, D, the Social Workers and the External educator, Ms. [social worker 2]. We agreed that the External Educator, Ms. [social worker 2], would be assigned to X to support him on an individual basis and for the home and school. We observed that X responds positively to a therapeutic alliance with a male Psychologist.

Despite the fact that X does have a right to Jordan’s principle, and we could switch to a male therapist, we had to weigh the decision and difficulties of finding a male therapist. Ms. Carmen Oprea, art therapist has already established two sessions with him. Despite the negative outcome, we should perhaps try to speak to her and hopefully make an attempt re-engage with her to continue therapy and suggest a slower pace or different approach.

Lastly, we recommend that X be referred for a Psychiatric assessment by a Child Psychiatrist for two reasons: one, to examine the depression and secondly to explore the posttraumatic stress reactions. We are concerned that he is at risk for self-harm. We notified Ms. C that X was bullied throughout the week at school which upset him although he did not feel comfortable in speaking about it in the session. Ms. C has been well aware of the bullying that has been going on and prior to her vacation she had notified the school; she would need to follow up to see if anything was done about it.

She will also follow-up with the child psychiatric assessment because he may be at risk for further depression and/or self-harm. The deadline for this report was not urgent but verbal feedback was provided right after the interview and considered sufficient. [ 10 ] X started sessions of art therapy in March. The first session went very well, but not the second one. Doing so, the DYP decides to stop the art therapy and to provide services of an external educator instead. The service started on April 29, 2021.

X participated well to those sessions and developed a good link with the external educator. [ 11 ] Considering Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations, a request for child psychiatrist assessment was made and he was put on a waiting list on April 29, 2021. [ 12 ] On August 16, 2021, at the first day of school, the child displayed very serious suicidal ideation. The police had to intervene and to bring him at the hospital. The Court was seized due to the Hospital refusal to keep him despite the seriousness of his situation and the gravity of his verbalizations.

The Court rendered the following decision: CONSIDERING the decision rendered on November 27, 2020, under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ; CONSIDERING the application under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act ; CONSIDERING the consent of the parties with the suggested measures; CONSIDERING the child shows very worrisome suicidal behaviours and recurrent suicidal ideation; CONSIDERING the psychological evaluation performed in April 2021;

CONSIDERING the child is known for depression symptoms; CONSIDERING the child was brought to the hospital by the police on August 16, 2021, for suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour; CONSIDERING that even at the hospital, the child was looking for a means of committing suicide; CONSIDERING the child has an incoherent speech about aliens, humans extermination and conspiracy; CONSIDERING the hospital would be ready to discharge the child; CONSIDERING the Social Services would have closed the file of the child; CONSIDERING a place in a rehabilitation centre would be available for this week, but maybe not next week; CONSIDERING the evidence shows the obvious need of medical services, but not the need of rehabilitation services; CONSIDERING the father is detained at Town B Detention Center; CONSIDERING the mother has an alcohol consumption issues; CONSIDERING the mother would have assaulted a Youth Protection worker who came at her place to ask her to sign medical authorization for the child; CONSIDERING the mother is not always available to answer the Director of Youth Protection’s request; CONSIDERING the medical situation of the child could require that urgent decision be taken and authorization forms to be signed; CONSIDERING the importance to protect the child; CONSIDERING the best interest of the child; CONSIDERING the serious risk of prejudice for the child if he remains in his actual situation; CONSIDERING the Court is not bounded by any administrative decision; CONSIDERING the sections 76.1 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act ; CONSIDERING the

section 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act ; CONSIDERING the consent the mother gave by the voice of her lawyer for the hearing under

section 95 to take place on October 20, 2021; CONSIDERING the mother was not present to hear the decision; CONSIDERING the absence of the father; THE COURT: GRANTS the application under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act ; DISPENSES the applicant from producing a separate application for provisional measures; ENTRUSTS the child to a health centre under

section 91

j) of the Youth Protection Act ; STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child be transferred to a pediatric hospital suitable to provide him specific services for his mental health issues; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to provide a copy of the psychological assessment to this hospital; AUTHORIZES the reintegration of the child to a foster family only if his medical situation allows it; STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the decision of reintegration be taken after obtaining the opinion of a child psychiatrist; ORDERS that the child receive all health care and health services required by his situation including any medication under

section 91

i) of the Youth Protection Act ; ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to their frequency, terms and modalities including the presence of a third party if deemed necessary; CONSIDERING the consent of the parties, ORDERS that the child benefit from a child psychiatrist assessment urgently; ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively to the execution of the present decision; WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS it to the Director of Youth Protection namely regarding the health care services;

ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to maintain the mother aware of the decision taken by the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance are provided to the child, his parents and his foster family; ORDERS that all medical prescriptions and recommendations be followed by all the care givers of the child; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain a complete copy of the medical, social and schooling files of the child; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to provide any documents requested by any medical professionals for them to have a complete portrait of the child’s situation; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present decision; ORDERS any police officers to collaborate to the execution of the present decision upon a verbal request from the Director of Youth Protection of one of his representatives; FIXES the hearing under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act on October 20, 2021, at 9:30 in the Court house of Town A. [ 13 ] Following this decision, the child remained hospitalized in Town A for a few days. He met with a child psychiatrist, but the evaluation was difficult due to X’s lack of collaboration and refusal to speak. [ 14 ] He was medevaced to the Town C Children's Hospital on September 6, 2021. He was discharged on September 9 and was transferred back to the Town A hospital on September 15. [ 15 ] On September 19, 2021, the Court was seized again with an application for provisional measures and rendered the following decision: CONSIDERING the decision rendered on November 27, 2020, under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ; CONSIDERING the decision rendered under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act on August 20, 2021; CONSIDERING the application under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act; CONSIDERING the child shows very worrisome suicidal behaviours and recurrent suicidal ideation; CONSIDERING the psychological evaluation performed in April 2021; CONSIDERING the child is known for depression symptoms; CONSIDERING the child was brought to the hospital by the police on August 16, 2021, for suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour; CONSIDERING that even at the hospital, the child was looking for a means of committing suicide; CONSIDERING the child had an incoherent speech about aliens, humans extermination and conspiracy; CONSIDERING the child aggressiveness with the medical staff in the hospital of Town A; CONSIDERING the child’s refusal to speak about his childhood and his suicidal thoughts; CONSIDERING the psychiatric assessment performed in September 2021; CONSIDERING the psychiatrist concludes that the suicidal risk is not immediate but chronic; CONSIDERING the psychiatrist concludes that despite this risk, it would be more prejudicial to maintain the child in a medical environment; CONSIDERING a place in available for the child in the Town B Group Home; CONSIDERING the best interest of the child requires that he be entrusted specifically in the Town B Group Home mostly because of the possibility for him to receive professional and medical services at Minnie’s Hope (pediatric clinic); CONSIDERING that no other rehabilitation centre is able to offer the same level of service; CONSIDERING the evidence shows that the child need to receive intensive support to ensure his safety; CONSIDERING that a reintegration in a foster family is not possible immediately and will not be possible before the hearing on the merit; CONSIDERING the fact that the mother was very collaborative, very caring towards the child and very helpful after the last provisional measures (August 20, 2021); CONSIDERING that, unfortunately, the mother was less collaborative this week and the child was affected by her attitude; CONSIDERING the medical situation of the child could require that urgent decision be taken and authorization forms to be signed; CONSIDERING the importance to protect the child;

CONSIDERING the best interest of the child; CONSIDERING the serious risk of prejudice for the child if he remains in his actual situation; CONSIDERING the Court is not bounded by any administrative decision; THE COURT: GRANTS the application under

section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act ; ENTRUSTS the child to the Town B Group Home; TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE that the DYP had informed the educators and the police officers in Town B about the risky situation of the child, for them to be ready to intervene properly; ORDERS that the child receive all health care and health services required by his situation including any medication, under

section 91

i) of the Youth Protection Act ; ORDERS that the contacts between the child, his parents, his grandmother and his aunt be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as to their frequency, terms and modalities including the presence of a third party if deemed necessary; ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively to the execution of the present decision; ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the director to inform her of the current situation; WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and GRANTS it to the Director of Youth Protection namely regarding the health care services; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to maintain the mother aware of the decision taken by the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that a person working for an institution of a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family until October 20, 2021; ORDERS that all medical prescriptions and recommendations be followed without any delay; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain a complete copy of the medical, social and schooling files of the child; AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to provide any documents requested by any medical professionals for them to have a complete portrait of the child’s situation; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. who shall then see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS any police officers to collaborate to the execution of the present decision upon a verbal request from the Director of Youth Protection of one of his representatives; FIXES the hearing under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act on October 20, 2021, at 9:30 in the Court house of Town A; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to serve a new notice of presentation or the present minutes to the parents to inform them about the new date of hearing. [ 16 ] The mother’s situation fluctuate a lot since the last decision. She made great efforts to reduce her alcohol consumption, but it remains an issue in her life and she relapses regularly. Her alcohol consumption makes her sometimes unavailable to have contacts with her children.

Her follow-up with the Social Services is less regular than it was before. [ 17 ] The mother started a new conjugal relationship in March, but this relation is unstable. The mother consumes with her boyfriend. [ 18 ] She started working at the hospital and she likes that a lot. [ 19 ] Regarding her collaboration with the DYP, it is very irregular as she is unreachable most of the time. She misses appointment or she is unavailable due to her intoxication.

On August 18, she assaulted the DYP worker who had to stop working due to her injuries. [ 20 ] Despite those difficulties, the mother still has very good parental capacities when she is sober. She was very caring and involved during her son’s hospitalization. She was regularly in his room and asked questions about his situation. She also escorted him to Town C and kept a very caring attitude there until the child had been discharged.

At that moment, the mother became impatient to go back North and started to drink. [ 21 ] To make sure that the mother could board the plane to come back, she slept at the hospital with her son. But, for an unknown reason, when she arrived at the airport the desk agent refused her because she would smell alcohol. Also, it was noted that she had not filed her authorization to travel to Town A [2] .

She decided to leave the airport with her son and was AWOL for a few hours until she called the DYP worker who asked her to bring the child at the hospital or at Town D which she did one hour later. [ 22 ] X was very affected by her mother’s behaviour during that time. Once back, X was entrusted to the Town A Group Home by the Court. The mother was absent at the hearing.

[ 23 ] Regarding the father, he is still detained. He called only once, in January, to have news about his children. [ 24 ] X adapted well to the Group Home despite a difficult beginning. Overall, he has a good behaviour even if some difficulties remained. Indeed, he is more able to work on his difficulties and still has work to do regarding the expression of his emotions. He started school, and there everything goes well. [ 25 ] On October 7, X started his psychological follow-up by videoconference. This service is offered by a male which fulfill Dr. Beltempo’s recommendations.

He is on a waiting list to receive services from Minnie’s Hope. During that time, the external educator keeps contacts by videoconference on a weekly basis to maintain the good link between both in view of a possible reintegration in a foster family in Town A. [ 26 ] The DYP is indeed looking for a foster family in Town A because X is very attached to his home town, mother and extended family members. [ 27 ] The DYP considers that a reintegration could be possible within less than one year. X is known to be able to behave well in a foster family.

Doing so, he needs rehabilitation services to learn how to express his emotions and to make sure that he is stable enough after his hospitalization. The reintegration depends on the evolution of his situation. For the DYP worker, if all the services are provided with the required intensity, a maximum period of 6 months should be enough. [ 28 ] The DYP will organize contacts between the child and his mother minimally once a month. The way the first visit will go will determine the frequency of the following ones. [ 29 ] The mother testifies about her desire for her son to come back in Town A at Ms. C’s place.

She is concerned by the suicidal ideation he had in August, but she is confident that he would be safe at Ms. C’s place because according to her, his place is close to his family members. [ 30 ] The mother took steps to have a phone working all the time at home and she is also reachable at work. The DYP does not request anymore to be authorized to sign the medical authorization and is confident that the mother will be now reachable. Analysis [ 31 ] The situation of the child required an early revision. He displayed very worrisome behaviours which justified important medical services.

Now, his situation has to be stabilized and well assessed to be sure that he can reintegrate a foster family in his home town safely. [ 32 ] As mentioned in the provisional measures rendered in September 2021, the evidence shows that his situation require that he be entrusted specifically to the Town B Group Home because he could receive more appropriate services there and for his stability, it is important that he could continue to develop clinical links with the same educators.

Doing so, the Court will strongly recommend that he be maintained there. [ 33 ] The Court understands the mother’s desire to have her son close to her, but it would be premature to reintegrate him now considering the seriousness of the reasons of the Court intervention in August.

It is preferable to take time, to make sure that the child had received the appropriate services and that the reintegration will be safe and a successful. [ 34 ] Considering the difficulties the DYP went through with the medical staff, the Court will notify this decision to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. It is unacceptable that the DYP has to seize the Court to obtain medical services for a child and to force the doctors to provide medical cares.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2010, are still endangered; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 38 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child remained entrusted to the Town B Group Home considering the evidence shows that it is in his best interest to remain there; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it; [ 40 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection plans to entrust the child to a foster family in Town A; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES and ENCOURAGES frequent contacts between the child and his mother by any technological way and in person;

[ 45 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services namely a child psychologist follow-up and services from Center A; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the child and his family receive the services of an external educator for the duration of the measures; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse; [ 52 ] THE WHOLE until July 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, 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 20, 2021