2018 QCCQ 13806, 2018 QCCQ 13806

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810813 2018 QCCQ 13806 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000896-180 DATE: October 31, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 24, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 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 declare the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2007, in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) iii., (b) (2) and (f) [1] of the Youth Protection Act . As measures, the DYP recommends the Court to entrust the child to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration with the mother as soon as the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 3 ] The child who is now 11 years old is present and represented by Me Neptune. He admits most of the alleged facts but he disagrees with the measures. He would like to be with his mother or in a foster family. Facts [ 4 ] On November 26, 2012, the DYP received and retained a report regarding X who was four and half years old. At that time, X was very aggressive and violent at the daycare.

The mother refused to seek for help for her personal issues (alcohol consumption and gambling) and for her son’s behavioural disturbances. On July 4, 2013, the file was closed at the evaluation stage “as there were no records of problematic issues that would indicate a severe endangerment to the child.” [2] [ 5 ] Between March 14, 2014, and June 2, 2014, the DYP received and retained four reports about X with regards with risk of neglect, serious behavioural disturbances, psychological ill-treatment and risk of physical abuse and physical abuse.

X would have been hungry and unwashed at school and displayed aggressive and oversexualized behaviours. X was seven years old. [ 6 ] Three years after, on May 2, 2017, after evaluation of those reports, the DYP concluded that the facts were founded with regards with neglect in terms of educational needs. The voluntary measures signed on May 30, 2017, mentioned that X did not go to school regularly and when he went it was for eating and sleeping.

The child was maintained under his mother’s care and after nine months, the voluntary measures were renewed for seven months until the end of October 2018. [ 7 ] The last voluntary measures (March 2, 2018) also mentioned that X was supposed to receive all health care and health services required by his situation such as for his auditory issues.

Also the family should receive the services of an external educator. [ 8 ] Regarding the period covered by the last seven months voluntary measures, the DYP worker indicates having no information from the mother because she does not communicate at all with the Youth Protection services. It was also impossible to go into the family house because he is not welcome. He knows that she lives in a two-story house in City A and that she works at the daycare for 17 years. [ 9 ] The DYP worker had his first meeting with the mother on April 10, 2018, in the presence of the social assistant.

The mother understood at that time that she signed voluntary measures and she was very upset. She left the office. Between April 19, 2018, and August 1, a few attempts were made to meet the mother. She wanted to have a translator but she did not find someone and the person suggested by the DYP worker was not accepted by the mother.

[ 10 ] At the end of August 2018, because of the non-collaboration of the mother, the DYP worker spoke with her about his intention to entrust X in a foster family. She agreed and suggested three persons to foster him, including Mr B known as biological father of X. [ 11 ] The mothers told the worker that she was not comfortable with the facts that her son does not go to school. She would like to have more power on her son.

Asked by the court if the external educator mentioned in the voluntary measures was provided, the DYP worker answer that it was requested but not offered as the mother does not collaborate. [ 12 ] Information from the school tells us that X is absent most of the time, sometimes he comes in the morning, he eats there, sometimes he sleeps and he leaves. The school offered him a shadow teacher, but the situation did not improve. [ 13 ] It’s reported that X is aggressive, disrespectful, is smoking cigarettes and cannabis, spitting, hitting and bulling other students and teachers.

According to the school staff, they have no collaboration from the mother. [ 14 ] The DYP worker went few times at school to meet X but he was absent. Both times he was there, he was sleeping in the student councillor’s office. It was not possible to wake him up and the mother was not reached following that. Because of that, X was not met during the period covered by the last voluntary measures except on October 18, 2018, 13 days before the court. [ 15 ] On September 5, 2018, an emergency measures was rendered and X was entrusted to Mr. B the ex-boyfriend of the mother.

The DYP was looking to continue the placement in a foster family, but changed the recommendations for a rehabilitation centre because X did not stay in the foster family and was frequently at the mother’s place. [ 16 ] The DYP worker met the mother many times between end of August and October. The last times was on October 17 with the mother only and on October 18, with the mother and X. [ 17 ] According to the DYP worker, the situation remained the same since the hearing of September 5, 2018. X is not going to school, he is fighting and still displays behavioural disturbances.

For those reasons, he recommends to the Court to entrust X to the Group Home A where he will go to school. [ 18 ] The mother testifies and says that she is taking care alone of her child since the birth. She knows that he has behavioural disturbances but she doesn’t want the DYP involved in her life. She considers being able to take care of her son, to impose a discipline and to provide for him. [ 19 ] According to her, it’s true that her son is sleeping in other houses sometimes but she always knows in which houses.

She also adds that she has other children at home and she can’t leave them alone during the night to run after X. [ 20 ] Confronted to the facts that she signed voluntary measures on Mai 2017 and accepted the services of an external educator, she answered that she was convinced that she signed a document to close the file. It was presented as such and considering she did not want the DYP involved, she was happy to sign it.

She adds that knowing what she was signing, she would never sign it. [ 21 ] She recognizes that an interpreter was present for the two voluntary measures, but the content of the documents was never translated integrally. Analysis [ 22 ] It’s obvious that the structure at home is quite nonexistent and for sure not adapted to a child of 11 years old. X is growing without supervision in an environment where he can do what he wants when he wants.

He is not different as other children: without any routine and nobody to tell him to go to school, he stays at home, he goes to bed late, also he hangs up with people who do not go to school or do not work. [ 23 ] But the evidence reveals that this situation is not new. The reports and the voluntary measures show that the situation is well documented for six years. Since he is at the daycare, he displays behavioural disturbances. For sure, without any services or any miracle, the situation can’t improve by itself. [ 24 ] Voluntary measures were proposed to the mother in May 2017.

After nine months, considering nothing changes, and the situation remains in danger, other voluntary measures were proposed for seven months. But why do nothing changes during the first nine months? Because the family did not receive services from the DYP during this period. It’s confirming the version of the mother who was convinced that she signed to close the file. If she would have received services, or at least phone calls from the DYP, she would have asked why they contact her, knowing the file is close. [ 25 ] If the situation remains the same, why the voluntary measures were renewed?

Why the Court was not seized with the situation? Today, the DYP is asking for a rehabilitation centre. X is only 11 years old and he is blamed because he has no structure, and no services. As any other child, he is looking for the facility. He is not going to school regularly for many years. Why should he be punished while his mother is not able to impose him the adequate structure? [ 26 ] For sure the mother has a responsibility because she is the one who have to provide the supervision. But she is not the only one responsible.

The DYP has a role to play to help the parents to be able to raise their children adequately. When the DYP is informed of a situation in which the child could be in danger according to law, he can’t wait three years before taking position. And when finally he concludes that the situation is in danger, he has to propose voluntary measures which should be signed within ten days or the Court has to be seized. [ 27 ] The situation of X has been forgotten for many years and now, obviously, it became worse and it’s urgent to do something.

But the Court considers that the solution is not in a placement in a rehabilitation centre. According to the law, X has the right to live in an environment as nearly similar to a normal family. Considering that services were not provided, contrary to what he was allowed to receive, as any other children, the Court considers that as corrective measures, he should be entrusted to a foster family. The DYP has the

responsibility to find an adequate foster family who will be able to provide a structure and this family should receive intensive services from an external educator. [ 28 ] Considering the bonds between the child and his mother, with his extended family members, and the importance for X to maintain a close relationship with his family members, the foster family has to be found in his community. [ 29 ] An intervention plan will have to be prepared with the family, the foster family, the school and the DYP with the objective to make X starting going back to school. [ 30 ] The Court will recommend the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la jeunesse to investigate on the situation of X.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the application; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2007, are in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) iii, (b) (2) and (

f) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family in his community, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre with the possibility of reintegration to the mother as soon as the situation allows it; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the services of an external educator be provided to the foster family and to the mother if X reintegrate to her, for a minimal frequency of once a week; [ 35 ] ORDER that an intervention plan be prepared with the participation of the mother, the foster family, the school and the external educator; [ 36 ] ORDER that the rules to be respected by X, be set out by the DYP and the foster family, be written and clearly explained to the child; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services, specifically for his hearing issue; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment of the child be performed and the recommendations be followed; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the recommendations made by the psychologist be provided to the school; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a drug addiction assessment of X be performed and the recommendations be followed; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a daily basis; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 46 ] 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; [ 47 ] 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; [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 49 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 50 ] THE WHOLE until April 18, 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 31, 2018