2021 QCCQ 16582, 2021 QCCQ 16582

Protection de la jeunesse — 214650 2021 QCCQ 16582 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001807-145 DATE: February 24, 2021 (written judgment rendered on April 16, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ 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, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] 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 prolong a decision rendered on October 23, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2010. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until August 30, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the placement has to be prolonged.

Position of the Parties [ 3 ] Despite being dully served and many times remind by the DYP worker about the Court date, the mother is absent and not represented. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served and also many times remind by the DYP worker about the Court date, the father is absent. He was represented before by Me Éliane Villemur.

As the father’s position was confirmed by the DYP worker, Me Villemur considered having a mandate and she confirms that the father recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures as long as his child is entrusted specifically to his grandmother. [ 5 ] The child is present and 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 October 15, 2014 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 4 and a half years old.

The family was followed by the DYP under voluntary measures since 2010, for numerous reports regarding neglect in term of health care, neglect in term of supervision and psychological ill-treatment. The parents were struggling with important alcohol and drugs consumption issues. Due to that, they had financial difficulties and the grandmother had to provide for the children. During the previous years, the child and his siblings had to be entrusted many times in foster families.

The Court entrusted the children on provisional measures and it appeared to be a wake-up call for the parents who took serious steps to improve their situation. The Court declared the security and development endangered due to neglect and entrusted the child to his parents with the service of an external educator, the whole until August 19, 2015. [ 7 ] On February 16, 2015 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the child to a foster family. [ 8 ] On March 17, 2015 , the Court revised the situation. The parents had relapse since October 2014.

The parents offered a good collaboration and were conscious about the effort they have to do. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and allowed a progressive reintegration after 6 months, the whole until December 18, 2015.

[ 9 ] On December 9, 2015 , the Court revised the situation and the evidence showed that the parents still has alcohol, drugs and conjugal violence issues. They had regular contacts with X, but they did not collaborate with the DYP. X had important tantrums. Despite the numerous episode of reject from his parents by the past, he was still very attach to them. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and ordered that he benefit from a psychological evaluation, the whole until September 30, 2016. [ 10 ] On September 8, 2016 , Dr. Beltempo signed a psychological evaluation.

He concluded as follows: I would recommend the following. As is often true with attachment disorders, even the ambivalent type, the best method is to provide high consistency, structure and supervision . X’s Mother would need coaching, mentoring and supervision herself in ways to better react to her son in order to set appropriate limits. Second, I would recommend that X be seen by Dr. Larose, M.D. child psychiatrist to assess a possible need for medication for his attention problems (ADHD). X showed many signs consistent with Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Disruptive Disorders.

Third, I suggest that X be referred to Dr. Kent Saylor, M.D, Pediatric Specialist in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder at Montreal Children’s Hospital, where X could be assessed cognitively, attentionally, and behaviorally to rule out Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

Lastly I suggest the parents strongly think through the impact of their drinking and conjugal violence on this boy and I recommend that the parents be referred to an Substance Abuse Counselor (at the Social Services) to address their consumption and conjugal violence for the sake of X’s development and Growth. [ 11 ] On September 14, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that until July 2016, the child was fostered by his paternal aunt, but he was removed because she was intoxicated in his presence. He had been entrusted to his maternal grandmother since then.

The parents’ situation remained the same. As he lived in the same village, he saw his parents frequently and without previous authorization from the DYP. The child had been placed 28 times in 20 different foster families. The Court entrusted him to a foster family until April 18, 2017, and ordered that the child receive health care services, notably a child psychiatrist evaluation for ADHD and a FASD evaluation. [ 12 ] On April 19, 2017 , the evidence showed that X remained with his paternal grandmother since the last decision. The parents’ situation remained the same.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until January 31, 2018. [ 13 ] On December 20, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. X was still at his grandmother’s place. The parents’ situation still remained the same and, as before, they did not respect the calendar of visits. Doing so the grandmother is tired of the situation. The parents sabotaged their son’s placement. The Court entrusted the child under his grandmother’s care until he reach his majority. [ 14 ] On September 20, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the child to Ms. C and Mr.

D. [ 15 ] On October 23, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. X was 9 years old. On September 2019, due to his bad behaviours, the grandmother became overwhelmed and asked that he be removed from her care. In his new foster family, X behaved well. The grandmother remained involved in the child life and hope to have him back later. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and took judicial knowledge that the foster parents were Ms. C and Mr. D. The Court ordered that the child received a psychological follow- up and that he continue to receive service from the psychoeducator.

The Court also ordered that services of an external educator be provided, the whole until August 30, 2020. [ 16 ] On January 29, 2020 , Dr. Beltempo signed a new psychological evaluation. He concluded as follows: The current cognitive testing suggests that X is in the very low range of functioning , a result of either neglects, FASD or part traumas which would have led to significant behavioral difficulties in school. […] It is quite clear that this child has experienced much trauma, which test result confirm.

The cluster of post-traumatic stress, avoidance of adults, oppositionality and aggressiveness suggest strongly a larger clinical picture of an insecure especially disorganised) attachment to his caretakers. […] […] All test evidence shows that X continues to struggle with ADHD as well as other learning disabilities, given his low cognitive functioning results. [ 17 ] He made the following recommendations: Firstly, we recommend that X be referred to individual counselling with social services to work on anger and emotional regulation. […] Secondly, we would recommend that the focus of the intervention be on limit setting and consistent setting of boundaries.

X nedds to work on emotional regulation, as well as anger replacement therapy. Thirdly, in the meantime, and as soon as possible, the Foster Parents need support from an external educator . […] Fourthly, X has ongoing attentional difficulties which need to be evaluated by a pediatrician. We recommend strongly that Dr. Lucie Nadeau, MD, child psychiatrist, conduct an ADHD assessment to determine whether X needs medication. Fifthly, in a previous psychological assessment by the Examiner (January 28, 2016) a recommendation was made for a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) assessment to Dr.

Kent Saylor, MD, pediatrician. In addition, a recommendation was made for Dr. Larose, MD, child psychiatrist , for an ADHD assessment. […] We support the plan for a placement into higher level of structure for X. Without adequate resources, X will likely continue to act out behaviorally as he has done already. We need to approach this in a very delicate manner, given X’s sensitivities and given his oppositional defiance problem and aggressiveness – he is reacting to the lack of adequate past parental support and modeling.

Consistent and appropriate positive modeling with skill-based approaches is needed for X to develop and grow.

[ 18 ] On July 24, 2020 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and maintained the previous measures. On August 21, 2020 , the Court postponed the hearing under

section 95 due to the recent suicidal of the child’ sister. The measures were maintained. On October 9, 2020 , due to a lack of time, the Court maintained the measures without being able to proceed on the application for revision. On November 26, 2020 , the file was postponed again for the same reason. Facts [ 19 ] After the last decision, the child was maintained entrusted to Ms. C and her boyfriend. [ 20 ] On 2 occasions, the foster parents mentioned that they would like to give up on the child. Once the child was not at their place and they ignored where he was.

They supposed that he was at his parents’ place, but the DYP worker was not able to find him. He came back later by himself. Another time, a meeting took place between the foster parents, the grandmother and the DYP worker. The foster parents mentioned once again that they would like to give up, but agreed to keep him until a new foster family be found. [ 21 ] Finally, on March 3, 2020, the DYP worker was made aware that X came back at his grandmother’s place. The decision had been taken between the grandmother and the previous foster parents. The DYP have been informed after and the grandmother was met.

As the situation seemed to be positive, the DYP maintained the child at his grandmother’s place. [ 22 ] The DYP worker called the grandmother on April 3, 2020, and she confirmed that everything went well. She was called once a month and each time, she confirmed that the situation was going well. The child was doing much better at her place, at school and the situation continued to evolve positively since his return at his grandmother’s place. [ 23 ] The child was assessed by Dr. Beltempo in January 2020. According to Dr. Beltempo, X has a positive attachment only with his grandmother.

The child did not benefit from a psychological follow-up despite the Court order, as the DYP worker misunderstood the Court decision. [ 24 ] It was decided not to provide the services from an external educator as the situation appeared to get better and the DYP did not want to add another worker. The follow-up with Ms. [Social Worker 2], the psychoeducator, was difficult to maintain as X refused to speak with her. She requested the help of the school counselor, but it remained difficult.

Doing so, she decided to close the file saying that the services was not required anymore. [ 25 ] The father works at the [store A] and also as first responder for the hospital. His collaboration with the DYP worker is minimal, but he always signed authorization when requested by the DYP. [ 26 ] The mother is working at the hotel since a few months. Her collaboration is also minimal and she hides from the DYP worker constantly. [ 27 ] The parents did not respect the rules of the visits while X was at Ms. C’s place. It was the same issues, when he was previously at the grandmother’s place.

But, since he is back under his grandmother’s care, the parents accepted to respect the rules. X does not go at their place, but they come at the grandmother’s place to see him frequently, but never when they are intoxicated. Those contacts are positive for X. [ 28 ] X started the school year in the French program as the parents wanted, but according to the grandmother, this program was too demanding for him. He was transferred in the English program by the end of October 2020, and since that time, he is doing very well and appeared happier. [ 29 ] X was supposed to meet Dr.

Nadeau, child psychiatrist, in September 2020, but as he was very affected by his sister’s suicide, Dr. Nadeau decided to postpone the meeting for the evaluation. She provided a survey to be completed by the teacher, but since that time, the teacher never send back the survey. The DYP worker contacted the teacher to obtain the survey without success. [ 30 ] The DYP asks a short-term measure to continue to assess the situation and to make sure that the grandmother will maintain her involvement.

Doing so, the DYP does not want that the foster family be specifically identified until an application for a long-term placement be made. The DYP would like to have enough flexibility to change the foster family without coming back to the court if the grandmother give up again. Analysis [ 31 ] As recognized, by at least the father, and as showed by the evidence, the situation of the child remains endangered. X suffered from a lot of instability. [ 32 ] Dr.

Beltempo provided explanation about the attachment disorder issues X is suffering from and clearly expressed that the only one healthy attachment he has is with his grandmother. The DYP expresses his concerns about the risk that the grandmother could give up another time, but the child is at her place since more than one year despite the previous Court order and everyone was satisfied with that.

Moreover, this child, having an attachment disorder issue, not only need to be reinsure about his place of living, but moreover to know that his grandmother is present for him. [ 33 ] For this reason, the Court considers that it is in the best interest of the child to entrust him specifically to his grandmother. The improvement he made since he is back under her care is the demonstration that he is well there and feel secure there.

After so much instability, it is his right to gain stability even if the decision is not for a long term. [ 34 ] Regarding his specific needs, the Court has a lot of concerns regarding the facts that, despite his situation is well known for many years and largely documented by two similar psychological assessments, he is still waiting for services. If the services had been provided before, it is justified to think that his behaviour would have not been so difficult and doing so, the previous foster family would have not given up on him.

[ 35 ] According to Dr. Beltempo’s opinion unchanged since 2016, X needs a FASD evaluation. Dr. Beltempo should have good reasons to recommend such evaluation and to specify the name of the specialist to contact. Unfortunately, this evaluation was never done and today the Court is facing to another excuse to explain that fact. Today the excuse is the necessity to obtain a referral from the child psychiatrist for an FASD evaluation.

The Court heard a lot of excuses in different files to explain that FASD evaluations are not done, and it is always a different excuse. [ 36 ] During the time where all the stakeholders play such ping-pong game, the child is still waiting. How long will he wait like that? As for now we do not know. The only thing we know is the fact that the child psychiatrist need the survey to be completed by the teacher, but the teacher, despite the numerous requests, did nothing. And when this survey will be provided, it will be necessary to wait for the child psychiatrist to come in Nunavik which is planned for fall 2021.

At that moment, another school year would have started. [ 37 ] It is important to remind to the school and the School board the prescription of

section 92 YPA: 92. Where the tribunal orders the carrying out of a measure with regard to a child, it shall entrust the situation of the child to the director, who shall then see that the measure is carried out. Every institution and every educational body is required to take all available means to provide the services required to carry out the measures ordered. The same applies to every person and to every other body that agrees to apply such measures.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2010, are still endangered; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the rights of the child were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection due to the non-respect of a Court order and health care services not provided; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his paternal grandmother as foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from a child psychiatrist evaluation and all recommendations be followed including any other evaluation; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child receive a FASD evaluation and all recommendations be followed; [ 45 ] AUTHORIZES the professionals to have access to the entire medical and schooling files of the child and ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to facilitate such access; [ 46 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide those professionals with a copy of Dr.

Beltempo’s evaluations (September 2016 and January 2020); [ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the professionals to explain their recommendations to the grandmother; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a translator be present for each meeting with the Director of Youth Protection and the health professionals; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 50 ] 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; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their personal issues; [ 53 ] 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; [ 54 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 55 ] ORDERS that X’s teacher complete the survey requested by the pediatrician with no delay in order to ensure proper medical cares to the child; [ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 57 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2021; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES: [ 58 ] ORDERS that this decision be notify personally to Ms. [Social Worker 3], Director of Youth Protection for City A; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the child psychiatrist and FASD evaluation be done with a maximum delay of 2 months following the date of

the written decision; [ 60 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to send a copy of those evaluations to the child’s lawyer upon reception; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a copy of the present decision be notified to Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adams, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 24, 2021