2019 QCCQ 14831, 2019 QCCQ 14831

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911140 2019 QCCQ 14831 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-000948-064 DATE: September 9, 2019 (written judgment rendered on January 6, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district of Abitibi (Quebec) […] 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 August 24, 2018 , regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004. At that date, the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre until August 7, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow a return of the youth with her mother and that the placement has to be extended.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Sinnett. She recognizes that her security and development are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 5 ] On November 28, 2006 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The DYP was involved in her brother’s life since 2001.

In 2004, while she was pregnant with X, the mother stabbed herself in the stomach to try to get rid of the baby. X was born in […] 2004 and, as soon as September 2004, she was diagnosed with an important heart condition. In May 2005, after an event of conjugal violence, the mother left the family house and left the baby to the father who refused to take care of her. Under voluntary measures, X was entrusted to a foster family for four months with a reintegration at her parents’ place. In September 2005, X had to be hospitalized and the mother was dissatisfied to have to stay with her.

In 2006, X had two additional cardiac surgeries, for which the mother was not present, as she was consuming. In October 2006, X was discharged and came back in the community, but the mother did not respect the medical prescription. The Court noted that the bonds were strong between X and her father, but not with the mother. The mother was evaluated by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist. She was 23 years old. Her father was murdered in 2003. She had drug consumption issues, loss of memories and depression issues. Her ex-boyfriend was also murdered.

The psychologist concluded that she was not able to take care of young children on her own and recommended that the contacts be supervised for at least three months on a weekly basis. Before thinking about a reintegration, Dr. Beltempo recommended that the mother address her traumas and her consumption issues. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted her to a foster family for six months. The Court also ordered that specific services be provided to the parents. [ 6 ] On June 5, 2007 , the Court revised the situation.

The parents still had alcohol and drugs consumption issues and X still had a serious medical condition, therefore the parents were not able to take care of her. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family for twelve months and authorized a reintegration after six months if the situation allowed for it. [ 7 ] On June 17, 2008 , the Court noted that X was in the same foster family in Town B and she was doing well. She no longer had

a medical condition, but needed a follow-up. One family member came forward and declared she was available to foster X. After a period of improvement, the parents’ situation degenerated again. In March 2008, the father was murdered, and the mother was accused of his murder. She was detained at the time of the hearing. The Court maintained the child in a foster family for six months and ordered that one of her aunts be evaluated. [ 8 ] On December 9, 2008 , the Court ratified a draft agreement. The parties recognized that the mother was still detained. The aunt was not positively evaluated to foster X.

X was still in a foster family and a life plan had to be drawn. No additional family members showed interest in fostering her. The Court entrusted her to a foster family for six months and ordered health care services for her. [ 9 ] On June 9, 2009 , the mother was still detained following the father’s murder. The child had now been entrusted to the same foster family for 33 months, but this foster family was not available on a long term basis. They were ready to foster X until a new foster family was found and the integration process was completed and successful.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until her majority. [ 10 ] On January 23, 2015 , as X was 10 years old, the Court was seized with a revision request. The mother was not involved in her daughter’s life. At this point, X had been entrusted to 15 different foster families. The last one seemed to meet her needs well, but again, it was a failure because of X’s behavioural issues and questionable sexual attitude. The Court entrusted X to a rehabilitation centre, followed by integration in a foster family after six months.

The Court also ordered a psychological evaluation. [ 11 ] On January 8, 2016 , the evidence revealed that the mother offered good collaboration and was able to resume the care of X’s brother. X had no significant contact with her mother as she had not seen her since August 2015. The youth was participating in a grief therapy with the social services and she received services from a psychologist paid by IVAC following her father’s murder by the mother. According to Dr. Beltempo, psychologist, X needed a long-term placement, at least two years in a highly structured environment.

He also recommended that after this placement, X could integrate a foster family where she would be the only child. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre and ordered specific health cares and services required by her situation, including a psychological follow-up, the whole until August 17, 2016. [ 12 ] On November 10, 2016 , the Court noted that despite the placement, X still had behavioural issues (aggressiveness, drug consumption, self-mutilation, running away), but an improvement at school was noted. She saw the psychiatrist and received medication to avoid tantrums.

She continued her psychological follow-up and she participated well. The relation between the mother and the youth was in the process of being rebuilt. The mother was doing better and wanted to be a part of her daughter’s life. X was diagnosed with an attachment disorder of anxious/ambivalent type. The Court maintained her in a rehabilitation centre until June 18, 2017, and ordered a psychological follow-up. [ 13 ] On August 24, 2018 , the mother had just come back from Portage after completing her third therapy. X had stayed in a rehabilitation centre in Town C since the last order.

She ran away many times and still had aggressive behaviour. Because she put herself at risk, she was transferred on three different occasions in the intensive unit. Dr. Beltempo made some attempts to evaluate her, but she refused. He maintained the diagnosis of attachment disorder of anxious/ambivalent type. X benefited from animal-assisted therapy, which helped her to calm down. Some contacts with her mother occurred, but X asked for them to stop because she disagreed with the supervision, even though the DYP considered supervision still necessary.

Upon X’s request, her aunt gave her a lot of information regarding her life in Town A and her father’s death. X reacted strongly. The Court entrusted her to a rehabilitation centre until August 7, 2019. [ 14 ] On July 24, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and X was maintained in a rehabilitation centre, which was then renewed on August 7 and on September 4, 2019. Facts [ 15 ] Since the last order, X was maintained at the rehabilitation centre and she still displayed behavioural issues. In September 2018, she was entrusted to an intensive unit because of her aggressiveness and because she ran away.

She stayed there until the end of October 2018. [ 16 ] In October 2018, X started zoo therapy with horses and it was very positive for her. She also started to study with a laptop in order to facilitate her schooling and to learn to make a budget and to be prepared for the coming adult life. [ 17 ] In February 2019, she underwent surgery for a cyst on her tongue and she recovered well. [ 18 ] In June, she was authorized to participate to a summer camp. She appreciated it a lot. [ 19 ] X refused contacts with her mother and other family members, and also refused to go up North.

The DYP worker told her not to hesitate if she changed her mind, as contacts could be organized if she wished for them. According to the DYP worker, the last contact with the mother took place around three years ago. The mother only exchanges a few messages through Facebook with her daughter. [ 20 ] At the beginning of the last measures, the mother improved her situation regarding her alcohol consumption. She had financial issues and was invited to meet with the social services to learn how to be able to make a budget.

Recently, she relapsed and was arrested twice: once while she was with her new born in her amautik, and once while she was assaulting her brother with an axe. Despite that, she maintained a good collaboration with the DYP worker and always signed the requested documentation for X. She planned to attend Oka in September 2019. [ 21 ] X wants to benefit from a program that can help her develop her autonomy, but because she is only 15 and half years old, the rehabilitation centre staff refused to offer it to her. The DYP worker considers that this program would be beneficial for her even though she is young.

According to him, there is no reason to wait as she is presently ready to receive those tools. Analysis

[ 22 ] As admitted by the parties, X’s situation remains endangered. Her behaviour requires that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre and that she continues to receive the services that can benefit her offered there, including the zoo therapy. [ 23 ] The Court shares the position of the DYP worker and will order that X benefit from a program that can help her to be prepared for autonomy.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the youth X, born on [...], 2004, are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 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 youth have a psychological evaluation and a follow-up if recommended; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the youth and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, according to the youth’s desire; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the youth benefit, as soon as possible and despite her age, of the services to help prepare her for autonomy, namely Programme qualification jeunesse (PQJ); [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth and her family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the youth Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 9, 2019