2018 QCCQ 13802, 2018 QCCQ 13802

Protection de la jeunesse — 1810805 2018 QCCQ 13802 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000612-140 DATE: November 1, 2018 (written judgment rendered on January 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 and prolong the decision rendered on October 13, 2017, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2003.

At that date, the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre with specific health care and health services as regular medication, follow-up by a child psychiatrist and medical services related to his medical condition. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that X’s situation is still in danger and required rehabilitation services and according to his recent psycho- educational assessment, an evaluation from a centre such as the Centre de Réadaptation A ([Centre de Réadaptation A]) is needed. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still in danger but she contests the suggested measures. She wishes her son back at home. [ 4 ] The adolescent is present and represented. He agrees to go to a rehabilitation centre but the length is too long, according to him. If the placement has to be so long, he asks to be entrusted to the Group Home in City A. He agrees to undergo to rehabilitation assessment. Historical situation [ 5 ] X suffers from epilepsy.

When he was 9 years old, because of his learning difficulties, a psychological evaluation was performed on March 7, 2013, to explain a potential link between his difficulties and the epilepsy. It was noted that he was in good health until he turned 2 years old. After that, he started to have some “absence seizures” and at school, the teachers reported a poor concentration and attention. [ 6 ] The psychologist recommended: […] it is important that he follows an individualized education program that permits him to learn gradually, in small steps.

To implement this program, a full-time teacher’s aid is recommended and necessary. […] it is important, when teaching him to use visual supports (demonstrations, images, graphs, etc.). The school program should place particular emphasis on functionality (applications of academics). In our opinion, his schooling will be extremely arduous and his achievements well below expectations and we anticipate that he will have to follow a semi-skilled job training parcours. […] [ 7 ] X was entrusted to a specialized foster family in City B from April 10, 2014, to May 1, 2014 .

The residential observation report states that this period was difficult because of his behaviour. Also, the report pointed out that, at only 10 years old, X smoked cigarettes and weed. [ 8 ] From May to July 2014 , a report was prepared to describe the periods of seizures and convulsions for the benefit of the doctor. This report shows that the convulsions were very frequent and could be few times a day. [ 9 ] On January 19, 2015 , Justice Gravel was seized of X’s situation. At that time, X was still entrusted to a specialized foster care.

X told the Court that he misses his mother a lot but understood he needs supervision. At that date, the Court pointed out that X was on a waiting list to be evaluated by the [Centre de Réadaptation A] since the spring 2014, which means between six and nine months ago (March to June 2014). At that date, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration with B as soon as possible, and recommend that the evaluation by the [Centre de Réadaptation A] be made as soon as possible. [ 10 ] On February 27, 2015 , a speech-language assessment was prepared.

This report contained the following recommendations: 1. Suggestions for the classroom teacher Use visual strategies to promote understanding, including: o Expand vocabulary and directly teaching, using visual support such as pictures, clip art, magazine pictures, photographs, objects, written words; o Use gestures, visual support and demonstrations; o Underline/Highlight key words in written work; o Support learning with lists, graphic organizers, charts and graphs.

Use auditory strategies to promote understanding, including: o Use short, simple instructions and sentences; o Slow down presentation; o Provide frequent checks of vocabulary; o Have him repeat instructions you give to be sure he understands.

Modifying expectations for contributions in class: o Ask open-ended questions that stimulate language production; o Encouraging predicting, explaining, comparing, describing, problem solving; o Ask how and why questions; o Expect phrase or short-sentence answers; o Scaffold and expansion of verbal contributions by providing cues, prompts, assistance to help him to answer verbally and use longer sentences: e.g. Student: They back to the camp.

Adult: you are right, “They went back to camp as fast as they can.” o Use poetry, songs, chants; o Use duet, pair and choral reading activities; o Match vocabulary words to pictures or simple

definitions; o Develop graphic organizers with word banks; o Compose stories based on personal experience, using a language experience 2. Suggestions for the Special Education Teacher Most of X’s articulation difficulties seem to result from his lack of exposure to English consonants: Inuktitut does not have “d, ch, j” sounds for example, and so he likely has trouble perceiving the sounds and their differences from each other, let alone producing them accurately.

I will send you some activities that you could do for a few minutes each session both to help him hear the difference between sounds as well as practice making them. However, I expect he will improve his pronunciation naturally as his competence and confidence in speaking English increases. In order to help him learn English grammar, vocabulary and sounds system, it would be good if X’s literacy program could also include some more general oral language learning, including vocabulary and how to make (and read obviously) read a simple sentence. Many common words like “the” “is” “can” etc. lack meaning for him.

The following are some suggestions that we discussed during my visit as well as additional ones, some of Beverley no doubt already does with him. • Prior to having him read any book, spend several minutes looking at the pictures, and discussing what you both see. Have a discussion about what you both know about the topic, where you have seen similar things. Doing this will help teach or remind him of the key vocabulary and content, so that he can use these as context (and cues) for reading. • Make individual books based on his own experience and life. Have him take photographs or draw pictures himself.

These will be much easier for him to understand and integrate in terms of learning.

• Develop a conversation journal (dialogue journal) between X and his teacher. Sentences are written by each, telling about an activity that has happened during the day or another topic of interest. The language used is thus relevant to every day speech. His classroom teacher, for example could write: Dear X, I like to watch hockey. What sport do you like ? , to which X (with the special education teacher helping him to begin with) could write “ Dear Ms C, I like hockey too.

I like dodgeball and basketball .” For more information see: http://www.[...] • Let him tell a story, describe a picture or talk about an experience, while a teacher/aide writes down what he has said, adding any missing words and correcting any errors. Have X then read the “story” that he has written. • When build his sight word vocabulary or blending for reading, make sure that he understands the words he is reading. Use pictures to help him learn the words, and for more abstract, less picture able words help him generate short, repeated line sentences using that word.

E.g. if the word being taught is “can”, having him generate, write and then read back sentences such as I can play hockey, I can jump, I can run, including drawing pictures of himself as desire. [ 11 ] On August 15, 2015 , another psychological assessment report was filed. This evaluation was required to have an update of his situation previous his reintegration at home. This report confirmed the diagnostic of ADHD and epilepsy and noted that the medication should be re-evaluated frequently by the child psychiatrist.

Finally, this report recommended “that the stimulant medication be supervised and evaluated periodically by his Psychiatrist, Dr. Larose. Lastly X would benefit from an FASD assessment and eventually be referred to Dr. Saylor, pediatrician specialist in FASD at the MCH.” [ 12 ] On January 5, 2016 , Justice Gravel is seized of the revision. The reintegration with the grandmother was done but the DYP saw that X went back to his difficult behaviour. The mother and the grandmother are overwhelmed with his behaviours and X is now rejected in his community.

The Court noted that the foster family did not receive services from an external educator because no one was available. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration with the mother if possible. [ 13 ] On August 18, 2016 , X is still in a rehabilitation centre and the reintegration was not possible because of his behaviour. For the same reason, he was able to have contact with his mother.

But considering no improvement was seen in a rehabilitation centre, considering his missed his mother and because the mother told the Court that she is able to take care of him with the support of the extended family, the Court entrusted him to his mother. [ 14 ] On March 2, 2017 , Justice Gravel reviewed the file. The behavioural disturbances are still present, and the mother is not able to offer enough structure. X was consuming cannabis. The mother started a relationship with Mr. D but many conflicts occurred between X and Mr. D. The family’s house was burned and they are now living in an overcrowded house.

The Court maintained X with his mother until July 2017. [ 15 ] On May 7, 2017, a psychological evaluation of the mother was filed. This evaluation pointed out her limited capacities mostly with a child with special needs as X. It also pointed out that X showed “parentified” behaviours and the mother was irresponsible.

The psychologist recommended: 1. […] to go to treatment for drug and alcohol […] 2. […] to improve collaboration with the DYP with the goal of improving her parenting . […] 3. […] that the External Educator provide more visual aids and use repetition to help her and provide increased support and structure .

A has significant limited parental capacities and would need a higher level of structure, i.e. support from her sister, stability (more interventions in the home for her and her son), consistency through continued DYP intervention and other professionals, i.e.: educators. […] 4. […] a psychological re-assessment of her parental capacities only within the space of one year in order to see if there are any changes.

The re-assessment would be conditional on her completing the drug and alcohol program […] [ 16 ] On October 13, 2017 , the evidence presented to Justice Beauchemin showed that the situation did not improve. X consume drugs and his relation with Mr. D is still bad to the point that X leaves the house when Mr. D arrives. X expressed the desire to see his father but the Court pointed out that there have been no new developments in that regard. X did not take his medication regularly and missed few medical appointments.

The DYP worker was not aware of the medical follow-up and because X had no structure he did not go to school. He was entrusted to a rehabilitation centre on September 1, 2017, and since this date, the phone calls with the mother has to be supervised because it always had a negative impact on X. For all those reasons, the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre for one year with specific conclusions regarding health services. [ 17 ] On April 14, 2018 , a psycho-educational assessment of X noted that he is entrusted to [Unit A] (City

C) since January 2018. This report concluded that X’s current intellectual functioning falls in the extremely low range and needs specialized education services for children with intellectual deficiency such as [Centre de Réadaptation A]. Also the psychologist recommends: It is important to build his verbal skills as some difficulties in this area may in part due to English not being his first language but as results are globally well below expectations this is not the main reason.

Computer software and online websites that focus on vocabulary, grammar, spelling, sentence structuring and writing paragraphs may be sources of help. He can be encouraged to build models, 3D puzzles or use educational digital games to help develop his visual spatial abilities. He demonstrated a relative strength in his ability to analyze and synthesize visual-spatial material through mentally visualizing puzzles. Presenting information visually, rather than just verbally, may improve his working memory functioning as his visual skills are much stronger.

Developing logical thinking skills could be done through watching a movie or reading a book then asking him to identify the main idea

of the story. X needs to experience more success at school, improve his basic reading and math skills and use strategies to compensate for his difficulties to help him reach his potential. It is important to help X further develop his adaptive behavioural skills including his daily living skills. Self-care is a relative strength for him but he needs ongoing coaching in all other areas. X would benefit from being involved in hobbies and other activities to help build his competencies and his social skills.

X is very competent in activities that require him using his hands to build things especially in the outdoors. It is recommended that there be follow up to monitor his depressive symptoms and offer intervention as necessary. Interventions for improving his processing speed can include practising simple timed tasks like card sorting.

He needs to feel a sense of accomplishment during the day through small measurable goals involving a reward system for goals met. [ 18 ] On September 4, 2018 , the Court maintained X in a rehabilitation centre on provisional measures and authorized the DYP to submit a request for specialized services to [Centre de Réadaptation A]. Facts 1- Admissions from the parties [ 19 ] X and his mother admit that the adolescent suffers from epilepsy and a lot of other medical problems that require a close supervision including supervision to take the medication regularly.

X expresses suicidal ideation and displays self-mutilation behaviours. Since the last court order, X had countless incidents at the rehabilitation centre. The mother is still involved in her conjugal relationship with Mr. D and still displays alcohol consumption issues. And finally, the mother admits having lost faith in the Youth Protection Service and for this reason she does not collaborate anymore. 2- Reasons why the reintegration with the mother is still not possible [ 20 ] The Youth Protection worker, Mr. [Social Worker 1] explains the reasons why a reintegration with the mother is not possible.

First, he reminds the last tentative in 2015. At the beginning everything went well, but few weeks later, the behavioural disturbances reappeared and the school asks for a shadow. The school principal posted a job opportunity to find a shadow teacher, but no application was received and no one wished to be a shadow for X. [ 21 ] The [1] [program A] was not offered to X because at that time he did not take his medication regularly.

Progressively, X was not welcome anymore in the community. [ 22 ] Today, according to the worker, the situation would probably be the same because a shadow is someone coming from the community, with or without a teaching background but willing to take care of a specific child. [ 23 ] It’s also mentioned in the decision rendered by Justice Gravel in January 2016, even that if it was ordered by the Court, no external educator was working with the family and Mr. [Social Worker 1] recalls this situation was explained by a lack of human resources. [ 24 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] describes X as a “daring young man.” If we give a challenge, he will do it, no matter what is this challenge.

Mr. [Social Worker 1] recalls an event when X was bitten up by another child and arrived at the DYP office with a black eye but refused to tell what happened. [ 25 ] The mother has other children to take care of. She is working and often she has to occupy two jobs to be able to provide for her family. She is tired, sometimes she drinks and X reacts when she drinks. Because of his epilepsy and ADHD, X is very demanding and difficult to take care of.

Mr. [Social Worker 1] adds that no services are available for X in the North. [ 26 ] In spite of the involvement of the mother, and the support offered by the DYP, Mr. [Social Worker 1] considers it’s not possible to protect X if he stays in City D. 3- Intensive Unit in City C [ 27 ] For one month, waiting for the [Centre de Réadaptation A] evaluation, X is in an intensive facility in City C where young offenders are entrusted to, knowing that he is not a young offender.

X was entrusted there because of his aggressive behaviour at the Group Home in City A and because X needs a full-time worker but the Group Home is understaffed. As soon as, they will consider he could leave this intensive unit, he will be sent back to City A, but the problem of staff won’t be resolved and no full-time worker will be in charge exclusively for X.

For this reason, even if the unit in City A is safer than City D, it is not the ideal solution because he does not receive the services he needs for his development. [ 28 ] Before this actual stay, he was entrusted there, three months starting in February 2018, for the same reasons. Every month a comity revised the situation of X and because of his behaviour, it was prolonged month by month for three months. [ 29 ] Based on the year of follow-up with X, Mr. [Social Worker 1] considers that X’s needs are not answered actually.

According to him, X should be accompanied to practise outside activities and not being punished and sent to his room as it is the situation at this unit. He is very crafty and manual activities should be organized. X is able to evolve if someone available and patient could help him to discover for example mechanics, wood work, etc.

[ 30 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] recalled that the best period of X’s life was when he was entrusted to the Group Home in City E in 2014. There he was followed by the same person all day. This person was able to create a good link with X and to explain to him the consequences of his behaviour in a way adapted to his capacity of understanding.

This resource is for 6 to 12 years old children, so X left in 2015. [ 31 ] At the Unit in City C, he is not authorized to go outside because according to the rule he has to be escorted all the time and he is not allowed to have visits with his family. [ 32 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] hopes that the [Centre de Réadaptation A] will be able to answer his need to be occupied and be outside. If not, the revision comity will have to find a place adapted to him.

The worker insists on the fact that X will turn 15 years old in December 2018, and it’s important to support actively X and his mother. [ 33 ] Questioning about the improvement of his situation, Mr. [Social Worker 1] considers that even if he answers to the program, the difference is not significant enough to justify a placement in this kind of resource (intensive unit in City C). [ 34 ] Regarding the schooling, Mr. [Social Worker 1] confirms that X is going to school in the rehabilitation centre. 4- Visits with his family [ 35 ] X is requesting to have more visits with his family, but as it was explained to him, each time he is in City C, he can’t leave for visits.

Only the mother can come to see him. But according to Mr. [Social Worker 1], that is not beneficial for X because one of his needs is to be up North. He thinks that short but frequent visits with his mother would be in X’s best interest and that is possible to organize when he is in City A. 5- Medical follow-ups [ 36 ] Regarding the medical situation, one of the positive aspects of the rehabilitation centre is that X is taking his medication regularly. He also still receives a follow-up with the child psychiatrist. The last time was in July.

The last evaluation recommended an evaluation for depressed symptoms, but unfortunately, he does not benefit from the follow-up he needs because the psychologist and the psychiatrist does not frequently come up to North. Mr. [Social Worker 1] indicates that he needs to find were and when they come and to fix an appointment with them for X. [ 37 ] The mother was supposed to meet the psychologist to have the evaluation explained to her. Three attempts were made. In November 2017, the Visio Conference did not work.

In December 2017, the mother did not show up and in March 2018, the meeting was planned during a visit mother/child in City C but at the last minute the date of the visit changed and the specialist was not available at the new date. Since the report is available (May 7, 2017), it’s still not explained to the mother. Mr. [Social Worker 1] tells the Court that he intends to meet personally with the psychologist and to explain by himself to the mother because he knows her very well and is able to make sure she understands well.

That being said, this meeting between the worker and the psychologist is not scheduled yet. 6- DYP’s intention for the following months [ 38 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] explains that if the Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre as requested, X will go back to City C in the same unit. In around one week, [organism A] will look at the Court decision, the acting and reaction of X and will decide where X should be entrusted to. [ 39 ] According to Mr. [Social Worker 1], [organism A] is the organization who plan all the rehabilitation placements for the children coming from [region A].

This organization decides in which facilities the children are entrusted to. According to him, it’s an independent organization which is not within the jurisdiction of the DYP nor the Hospital. [ 40 ] [Organism A] consists of persons involved in the integration plan meaning the directors of [organism A], of [centre A], of [Group Home A] and of the intensive unit, the workers involved in X’s situation on a daily basis in City C and Mrs. [Social Worker 2], supervisor of Mr. [Social Worker 1]. [ 41 ] As a worker for X, he is a member of this committee and he is consulted when they are speaking about X’s situation.

Mr. [Social Worker 1] seriously doubts that his opinion is taking into consideration. According to him, as we do not know what part of X’s behaviour belongs to his illness and what part belongs to the fact that X is an adolescent, it’s very difficult to be sure that the decision taken, is in his best interest. [ 42 ] Because we do not have the evaluation from the [Centre de Réadaptation A], nobody knows exactly X’s needs and during that time no ideal solution is found for X. Also, Mr. [Social Worker 1] regrets that the persons sitting on this committee do not have the same knowledge of X’s situation.

He knows X for four years and some people knows him for three months. He points out the importance for everybody to have the same understanding to make sure to take the best decision for this child. [ 43 ] The DYP worker explains that the service from [Centre de Réadaptation A] recommended by the psychologist is a rehabilitation centre under to

section 91

j) YPA where adolescents like X needing more supervision and more structure can receive help to achieve autonomy according to their capacities and at their pace. [ 44 ] X is actually on the waiting list of the [Centre de Réadaptation A]. Mr. [Social Worker 1] confirms all the requested documentation has already been sent to the [Centre de Réadaptation A]. He knows that it could be long for X to be evaluated and has no idea about the date it could possibly be done.

He hopes to have more information about the delay at the [organism A] meeting scheduled for next week. [ 45 ] After the evaluation, the [Centre de Réadaptation A] will take the decision if X is accepted or not in this resource. Mr. [Social Worker 1] does not know if the [Centre de Réadaptation A] could suggest other facilities if they do not accept X.

[ 46 ] If X is refused and no other facility is suggested by the [Centre de Réadaptation A], the DYP plans to entrust X to [Group Home A] and to continue to look for a resource as the [Centre de Réadaptation A]. 7- Intervention Plan and follow-up of the previous evaluations [ 47 ] Questioned by the Court, Mr. [Social Worker 1] confirms that no intervention plan is signed in X’s file. Mr. [Social Worker 1] is following his own intervention plan with the goals he considers adapted to X. According to him the official plan would be too general and X is able to do more than we are waiting from him.

He wants to bring him to the adult life with the right tools, teaching him what is wrong and the consequences of his behaviour.

Mr. [Social Worker 1] deplores that actually, the services provided are only there to content his behaviour but he will turn 18 years old soon and nothing will have changed for him. [ 48 ] The Court also questioned Mr. [Social Worker 1] about his knowledge and the application of the evaluations and recommendations made since the beginning of the DYP intervention. [ 49 ] First regarding the psychological evaluation dated from March 2013, he reminds that it took a long time for the DYP to sign the authorization and to officially assign him to X’s file.

Because of that, he was not allowed to have access to the entire file of X including this evaluation. [ 50 ] When he received the authorization to have access to this evaluation, he took acknowledge of the recommendations but he does not remind if this evaluation was provided to the school. He only knows that even if the psychologist recommended a full-time teacher, X did not receive this service.

No intervention plan was drafted by the school, nor the DYP based on the psychologist’s recommendations. [ 51 ] Regarding the speech language assessment made in February 2015, the worker admits that this report was not provided to the school so it was impossible to apply the recommendations. [ 52 ] The psychological evaluation made in August 2015, recommends that the medication be re-evaluated regularly. Mr. [Social Worker 1] confirms it’s done. In City D, it was not regularly because the child psychiatrist does not go there often, but she goes to City A.

Since he is there, the follow-up is regular. [ 53 ] This psychological evaluation also recommends that an evaluation for FASD be made but Mr. [Social Worker 1] don’t think it was done. [ 54 ] The Court asks why in beginning of 2015, the DYP told the Court that X was on a waiting list to be evaluated by the [Centre de Réadaptation A] since spring 2014, and as of today nothing was done. Mr. [Social Worker 1] confirms X was never evaluated by the [Centre de Réadaptation A] even if he was on a waiting list and even if it was requested by the Court. [ 55 ] Actually X still receive medication for epilepsy and for ADHD.

It was difficult for the mother and for X to accept the facts that he needs to take this medication. But now both recognize the benefit of this medication and it facilitates a lot. 8- Mother’s position [ 56 ] The mother testifies and says she wants her son back at home. She engages herself to make sure X would take his medication and go to school on a daily basis. She wishes him to benefit from [program A]. [ 57 ] Concerning the intensive facility and the [Centre de Réadaptation A] program in City C, she is worried not to be able to see her son regularly.

She did not see her son since January 2018, and she misses him a lot. She knows that X is homesick and on her side, she is so sad with the situation and she can’t sleep at night. Analysis [ 58 ] X is a 15 years old boy with very special needs. On one side, by chance those needs are known for many years but on another side sadly, even if they are known, X did not receive the required and the recommended services. [ 59 ] The evaluations made about X were not provided to school. The recommendations were not applied and without knowing the needs, the school was not in position to look for the adapted resources.

Because of the lack of communication between the health services, the DYP and the school, the recommendations were not taken into consideration and no intervention plans were signed and followed. [ 60 ] The Court is aware of the lack of human resources for many years in the North but it’s not a pretext not to provide the recommendations to the school. Without those reports, the school was not able to ask for financial and human resources. During that time the situation of X was getting worse.

Because of his behaviour, he was bullied at school, bitten up by his peers and nobody from the community would like to be a shadow for him. But at the same time, nobody knew why X was acting like that. [ 61 ] His situation was getting worse not only on his social skill level but also on the academic level. Today, X still has learning difficulties. What should be his situation now if the recommendations have been applied? For sure, it would be better. [ 62 ] That is the situation for the reports regarding his schooling, but the situation is the same regarding his health situation.

In August 2015, a FASD is suspected by the psychologist and an investigation is required. As of today, nothing was done. If X is really suffering from this disorder, it could explain his behaviour and since that time services could have been provided to him. Do we prefer to stay in the dark or do we prefer to provide X with the appropriate services? [ 63 ] Finally, the Court is very surprised, to say the less, that today the DYP is requesting an evaluation from the [Centre de Réadaptation A]. According to the evidence provided to Justice Gravel at the hearing on

section 38 YPA (January 9, 2015), X was on a

waiting list since six to nine months. Even if the Court ordered at that time to continue the steps with the [Centre de Réadaptation A], nothing was done and we are still at the same stage with the difference that X’s situation continued to get worse. [ 64 ] Today, the DYP worker testifies about the needs of X and we can see that finally the gravity of the situation is taken into consideration. But the Court still has concerns because Mr. [Social Worker 1], involved in the file for four years has the perception that his opinion is not considered.

With the non-offered services for many years, it’s urgent that the decision-makers act in concert in the best interest of X. The evidence does not shows that X has to be entrusted to an intensive unit for youth offenders. His medical condition has consequences on his behaviour, and actually he is punished because he is sick.

He is an [origin A] child who needs to be outside, to work with his hands and he has the right to develop his skills and to find his way. [ 65 ] He is entrusted in an intensive unit because contrary to what the psychological assessment from March 2013, required, and the following reports continue to require, no full-time worker is available in City A. [ 66 ] The Court has no hesitation to order the evaluation from the [Centre de Réadaptation A] because as previously said, it was supposed to be done for many years.

But considering the evidence shows that there is no guarantee the [Centre de Réadaptation A] will accept X, the Court will order the DYP to ask for evaluation from other equivalent rehabilitation centres if the [Centre de Réadaptation A] answers negatively. As the evaluation from the [Centre de Réadaptation A] was suggested by the child psychiatrist, the Court will order the DYP to request for other suggestions from the child psychiatrist without delay. [ 67 ] Also, the Court is preoccupied by the steps made to involve the mother and to make sure she understands her son’s situation well.

She collaborated to be evaluated by the psychologist but since May 2017, she did not receive explanation about the report and the recommendation and she is the most concerned. How can she make changes? How can she understand the impact of her situation on X? This report would also have interest for her with her other children. If the report was to stay dead letter, it was not necessary to do it. That only contributes to the mother’s lack of confidence in the Youth Protection services. [ 68 ] X is homesick and the mother also misses her son a lot.

It’s intolerable to separate a child from his mother for a period of ten months. The Court was the occasion for X to see his mother. Considering he is in an intensive unit in City C, if the Court were not seized of his situation, he would have not seen his mother for another few weeks or months. The DYP worker himself says it’s in X’s interest to have regular contact with his mother and not only in the South but in the North because he needs to connect with his extended family members.

Because of that and because there is no reason why he should be punished more than he is, the Court will order a minimal frequency for visits at home. [ 69 ] Another X’s need is to be maintained in contact with his culture. He is a young [origin A] who is involved in the [origin A] culture since his birth. The Court is aware that the non-[origin A] foster parents who foster [origin A] children in the region of City C have access to organizations and activities to maintain the children in contact with their culture.

X should have access to this kind of services even if actually he is in an intensive unit despite himself. [ 70 ] Finally, the Court will ask the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate about the lack of services offered to X, the delay to receive services and the lack of communication between the person and organism involved in his life. On many aspects, the rights of X have not been respected and this situation prevails for many years.

The Court invite the Commission to make any recommendations she considers appropriate to help X to receive the services adapted to his conditions.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 71 ] GRANTS the application; [ 72 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the X, born on [...], 2003, are still in danger; [ 73 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 74 ] ORDERS that X and his mother actively collaborate to the measures ordered by the Court; [ 75 ] ORDERS that X receive health care and services required by his situation such as medication, follow-up the child-psychiatrist and medical services related to his condition including his depressive symptoms; [ 76 ] ORDERS that an evaluation of X be performed to determine if he suffers from FASD and ORDERS that all recommendations be followed; [ 77 ] ORDERS that X be evaluated by the Centre de Réadaptation A to determine if he could receive services from this centre and if appropriate to follow the recommendations set out by this centre; [ 78 ] If the Centre de Réadaptation A can’t offer services to X, ORDERS the DYP to request suggestions to the child psychiatrist about others adapted resources and to take the necessary steps to obtain evaluation from equivalent resources; [ 79 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to make any request to any equivalent organization if the [Centre de Réadaptation A] cannot accept X; [ 80 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection engages himself to provide a shadow to X and ORDERS that X benefit from a shadow on a daily basis; [ 81 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the X and his mother be supervised and facilitated by the Director of Youth Protection regarding frequency and modality with a minimum frequency of once per month at home and with a minimum frequency of once per week by phone and/or video call;

[ 82 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide X easy access to [origin A] cultural and craft activities; [ 83 ] ORDERS that X attend school or any other place of learning on a regular basis; [ 84 ] ORDERS that the two psychological evaluations, the speech language evaluation and the psycho-educational assessment be provided to the school without delay; [ 85 ] ORDERS that the recommendations set out by the two psychological evaluations, the speech language evaluation and the psycho-educational assessment which are still relevant be followed; [ 86 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid counselling or assistance to X and his mother; [ 87 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the mother access to explanation about the contents of all the reports issued in X’s file without delay; [ 88 ] RECOMMANDS the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate about the lack of services offered to X, the delay to receive services and the lack of communication between the person and organism involved in his life; [ 89 ] INVITES the Commission to make any recommendations she considers appropriate to help X to receive the services adapted to his conditions; [ 90 ] 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 her representatives; [ 91 ] ENTRUSTS X’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; [ 92 ] THE WHOLE until April 17, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the mother Dates of hearing: October 31 and November 1, 2018