2021 QCCQ 17257, 2021 QCCQ 17257

Protection de la jeunesse — 214652 2021 QCCQ 17257 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001960-159 DATE: March 15, 2021 (written judgment rendered on June 3, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [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 review a decision rendered on June 2, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to the foster family of Ms.

C. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to her parents and recommends entrusting her to a rehabilitation centre with a reintegration in a foster family as soon as the situation allows it, until October 31, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but was represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she disagrees with the measures. She asked that her daughter be entrusted to a foster family in City A.

According to her, she already gave the name of this person to the DYP worker. [ 4 ] The father is absent and not represented. Me Élianne Villemur made steps to reach him as she ever represented him in the past, but he never answered. His position in unknown. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Cassandra Neptune. The child had difficulty to clearly express her position. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On January 8, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and maintain the child with her parents with aid, counselling and assistance.

On February 16, 2016, those measures were prolonged until April 2016. [ 7 ] On April 11, 2016 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 2 and half years old. The DYP is involved in the family’s situation since February 2014. The parents have alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. They could be highly intoxicated in the presence of their children. The parents recognize their issues, but never maintain effort to resolve them.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and ordered that the child remain with her parents with the help of an external educator until the end of January 2017. [ 8 ] On July 28, 2016 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family on provisional measures. [ 9 ] On September 15, 2016 , the Court revised the situation. The DYP had to take many protective measures since the last decision because the mother was heavily intoxicated or nowhere to be found. The father was detained most of this period. The child is developing well since her emergency placement.

The mother is ambivalent regarding her willingness to attend a treatment centre. Both parents have good parental capacities when sober. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, but authorized the mother to attend [Centre A]

Mother and Child Program with X. [ 10 ] On May 8, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. X was 3 years old and she started to show some signs of anxiety, she could be controlling and come into crisis. She is very attached to her parents. During home visits X witnessed consumption, conjugal violence and police interventions. The contacts were decreased because of that and the child reacted strongly. Since the previous order, X was entrusted to 3 different foster families. On April 11, 2017, X was entrusted to her mother who was admitted to [Centre A].

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, but authorized the mother to attend [Centre A] Mother and Child Program with X and authorized a reintegration following strict conditions. [ 11 ] On March 27, 2018 , the Court revised the situation. The mother was at [Centre A] until the end of October 2017, but her situation remained fragile. The bonds between the child and the parents are still very strong. The child is fostered by the paternal grandmother, where the father will go to live.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family and order a reintegration with one of the parents as soon as possible, the whole until February 28, 2019. [ 12 ] On January 30, 2019 , the evidence reveals that the mother attend [Centre A] another time and complete the adult program. Unfortunately, soon after her return in the community, she was found intoxicated in the presence of X. Each parent succeeds in having their own house, but they lived together in the father’s house. The mother started working at the school.

She was clear that the father has no right to consume in the house nor to come back intoxicated in the house. She agreed to live at her own place to be sure to have her children with her (X and her oldest son, Y). The mother was not always available to benefit from her visit with X, and the child is missing her mother a lot. A request was made for a psychological assessment as the DYP has concern regarding a possible attachment disorder. X was not entrusted anymore to her paternal grandmother, she was at the specialized foster family. As no foster family was found in [Region A], the DYP found one down South.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until June 30, 2019. [ 13 ] On June 5, 2019 , the situation was revised again. X still had strong bonds with her parents and her brother Y and wanted to live with them. She was entrusted back to her parents at the beginning of April 2019. Since the last hearing, the parents remained together and continued to display alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. Numerous events of consumption were reported since the last court decision. Despite that, the parents exercised daily contacts and the child witnessed this consumption.

A foster family was found in City B and the Court ordered that the contacts occurred in City B rather than at the parents’ place to avoid the risk for the child to witness consumption and violence again. The Court noted that since her birth, the child was moved 81 times from one caregiver to another one. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family, ordered that she receive health care services, notably a psychological assessment, the whole until June 30, 2020. [ 14 ] On December 12, 2019 , Dr. Beltempo signed the psychological assessment of the child. The psychologist spoke with the foster father, Mr.

D who shared his concerns about X. The foster father also said that he will continue to foster X at least until September 2020, when he and his spouse go back to school down South. The psychologist concluded that X “showed numerous signs of attachment disorder, mostly the anxious type.” Dr. Beltempo recommended: • I strongly recommend reparative attachment counselling on a week basis. • We went to Social Services Office and found Mr. [social worker 2], Social Worker, who does family counselling with young children . The Examiner introduced him to D and, they set up an appointment for weekly follow-ups.

We strongly recommend that the Foster Family and X be provided this support service with a particular focus on: 1. Sleep problems – fear of the dark. 2. Attentional problems, i.e. sibling rivalry. 3. How to set limits with the child who has an attachment disorder. 4. Abandonment issues and emotional regulation. [ 15 ] On June 2, 2020 , the evidence revealed that the parents’ situation remained the same since the last court order. The parents did not take steps to address their issues. X and her brother were entrusted to the father’s cousin in City B and they were doing well there.

The Court entrusted X specifically to Ms. C, ordered the DYP to prepare a life plan for the child, ordered that services of an external educator be provided and that the recommendations set out by Dr. Beltempo be implemented, specifically that she benefit of a reparative attachment counselling on a weekly basis and family counselling for young children involving the foster mother. [ 16 ] On August 10, 2020 , the Court entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre on provisional measures. Facts [ 17 ] As ordered by the Court, X stayed at Ms. C’s house, in City C. Ms.

C is a relative to X’s father and know him very well. X is there since February 26, 2020. Ms. C was able to manage the access and to refuse the access with the parents when she considered that the situation was not positive for X. [ 18 ] X is described as a young girl who enjoys attention and who likes to please. She has several behaviour disturbances and, as diagnosed by Dr. Beltempo, she has an attachment disorder. [ 19 ] Starting in June 2020, Ms. C started to communicate regularly with the DYP to complain about X behaviours and to address her desire to stop fostering her.

According to the foster mother, X was not respecting the rules of the house, she initiated conflict with her brother and Ms. C’s children and had important crisis after having access with her parents. [ 20 ] X always expressed that she miss her parents a lot and had difficulty to be separated from them.

[ 21 ] In June 2020, Ms. C took some free days and went to City B. She made sure the children were safe and babysat by a trustable person. She clearly forbid that X would go to her parents’ place because she knew they just receive money and they bought alcohol. Unfortunately, X did not respect the rule and went to see them. As soon as she was made aware of that, Ms. C called the DYP emergency line during the night and make sure that X go back at her place immediately. X reacted strongly to this intervention, and the police intervention was needed as the parents were not collaborative. Ms.

C made the children travelling to City B to be sure they would be safe. [ 22 ] During her stay in City B, she had a long conversation with X and Ms. C accepted to try again to foster her. The DYP worker invited her to come at the office upon her arrival in City C to make the request for a follow-up at the Social Services. Ms. C agreed and signed this authorization on July 8, 2020. [ 23 ] Questioned about the reason why the service of an external educator was not requested before, the DYP worker ignores why. She only knows that Ms.

C was quite reluctant to this service and she requested this help when she was already overwhelmed with the situation. Before being entrusted to Ms. C, X was entrusted to 4 different foster families in City B and she also ignores if the services of an external educator was provided while she was there. [ 24 ] Still in July 2020, the home visits were also decreased to once a week because of the negative impact it has on X’s behaviour. Despite this new modality, the contact of July 23 went wrong. The mother drank in front of X and when she went back at her foster home she cried for a long period of time.

The foster mother was very sad about the situation and would like to give up again. Support from the foster home department was given to her waiting for the Social Services to start the follow-up requested 2 weeks before. The visits were also put on hold. [ 25 ] On August 5, X did not respect again the rule of Ms. C and went to her parents place while, the foster mother was packing all the stuff to go camping and was waiting for X to go on the land. X did not come and Ms. C decided not to wait.

The foster mother clearly expresses that the situation was too much for her and she gave up. [ 26 ] On August 17, after the hearing on the application for provisional measures, X travelled to City D with her mother and her younger brother to be entrusted at the Group Home. [ 27 ] Since she is there, the educators have only positive comments about her. She adapted well and her behaviour did not raise any concerns. She asked for her mother, but she was reassured easily. [ 28 ] In September, the parents travelled to City D for X’s birthday. The parents get intoxicated.

The mother was able to sober up before visiting her daughter, but the father was too intoxicated and was prohibited from going to the Group Home. During this stay, because of this consumption, the DYP entrusted X’s little brother. The situation of conjugal violence issues also remains very present in the parents’ lives. [ 29 ] X is still very attached to her parents, but each time they consume, she has the feeling that they prioritize their own needs and she feels rejected again. [ 30 ] X suffers from an important attachment disorder. These issues make her test the limits, and also the love she receives.

She has trust issues and doing so, she does not respect the rules. Even if the limits are very clear, she will test those limits.

She could be jealous of the attention that an adult can give to another child. [ 31 ] The reports speak about “40 foster families in her short life.” But, in June 2019, Justice Beauchemin noted that “since her birth, the child was moved 81 times from one caregiver to another one.” Asked to give explanation about that, the DYP worker confirms that she moved to around 80 different places, but it is possible that she was entrusted twice to a same place and she adds that, since Justice Beauchemin’s decision, it would be reasonable to speak about a total of 85 different placements. [ 32 ] The report mentions that “the child cannot face the same situation again and again as it would increase her feeling of abandonment and causing more damages on her attachment capacity.” [ 33 ] For the DYP worker, the child went through too many placements.

She considers that during the last one, Ms. C had been supported in her task, but clearly not enough. She is not convinced that the previous foster families receive the same support nor were fully informed about the specific situation of X before accepting to foster her. The DYP did not look for another foster family because Ms. C was the last option. According to the DYP, it is not possible to continue like that. X’s disorder is too important, and a rehabilitation centre is required. She considers that even if she is 7 years old, she can work on her issues.

There is some way of intervention which could be used as for example, the modelling. [ 34 ] The writer also says: “we will also take in consideration, when the child will be ready for reintegration, the next foster family will need education and support regarding attachment disorder.” The DYP worker mentions that a more important support will have to be offered to the next foster parents because X’s needs are very important. [ 35 ] The Court asked the DYP worker if X is a child who needs more demonstrations of love. She answered yes and no. She needs a lot of love, but not too much demonstration of love.

So, how the educator in a Group Home could help her? According to the DYP worker, the relation between the child and the educators is different than the relation with a foster parent. At the Group Home, X does not expect to receive the same demonstration of love, so she will comply with the rules. [ 36 ] The fact that the services recommended by Dr. Beltempo are available in City D is another reason to entrust her there.

On October 8, 2020, the DYP worker said that the decision to maintain her in City D was not taken yet, but the DYP worker hopes that she will stay there because of those services. [ 37 ] The DYP worker explains that before thinking about a reintegration, X will have to be able to deal with her trauma. The reintegration will be possible only after obtaining the advice of professionals. It could take a few years to be able to address her issues

enough before thinking about a reintegration, because the reject she lived will probably never be healed. The DYP worker recognizes that a rehabilitation centre is not the place for a seven-year-child, but there is no other option available. If a reintegration happens, the process will be long. The foster family will have to be well informed and well prepared. [ 38 ] The DYP worker heard about the person in City A on October 8, when the mother told her about that before the hearing and before she left. The mother did not have the information to reach this person.

For the DYP worker, a placement in a foster family would probably be positive at the beginning because it would be the honeymoon, but quickly, the situation will degenerate. [ 39 ] As for now, the objective is to entrust her back to C because she is able to offer her a good environment and she is a relative. But for now it is not possible to speak about any time frame. [ 40 ] Regarding the services available in City D, there is no reparative therapy as recommended by Dr. Beltempo, but a psychoeducator is working with X on the other aspects listed by Dr. Beltempo.

The DYP worker asked that the meeting with the psychoeducator take place at least once a week, but she does not know if she is met at this frequency as the psychoeducator never called her back. [ 41 ] The initial request for services was made on April 2, 2020, but it started only by the middle of September 2020. In April, this service was refused because the Social Services organization was short-staffed. A new request was made, but the Social Services worker was on a sick leave. On July 28, the Social Services manager refused again to provide the service.

The DYP met with the manager to find a solution, but shortly after, the foster family gave up. [ 42 ] The DYP worker explains that such situation of refusal to collaborate for the Social Services is very frequent even if the DYP mentions in the request that the services is Court ordered. [ 43 ] Once she was entrusted in City D, a request was made and accepted, but as mentioned, no information was provided about the follow-up provided. [ 44 ] The DYP worker is not sure that it could be beneficial to add a psychological follow-up because each time we add another service, X has to create a new trust relation which is very challenging for her.

The DYP worker does not want to worsen the situation by trying to help her.

The situation is a very delicate one. [ 45 ] At the end of the hearing of October 8, 2020, the Court refused to render a final decision in this situation, informing the parties that this child is too young to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre on a long term basis, that the evidence shows that it is not surprising that she has an attachment disorder after being entrusted to 85 different places at only 7 years old and knowing that the previous foster families were never informed nor prepared to her specific situation. [ 46 ] The Court rendered the following provisional decision: CONSIDERING the application under

section 95; CONSIDERING the situation of X remains endangered; CONSIDERING the Director of Youth Protection recommends that she be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre; CONSIDERING the measure is contested; CONSIDERING the Director of Youth Protection did not respect the prescription of the Youth Protection Act by not providing stability to the child; CONSIDERING the evidence provided does not permit to conclude that X needs rehabilitation services; CONSIDERING this rehabilitation centre placement is required because no alternative measure was found; CONSIDERING the right of the child are wronged by the Director of Youth Protection on

section 2.3 a), 3, 4 and 7; CONSIDERING the necessity to impose a corrective measure urgently CONSIDERING the child is currently in a safe place, but this place does not answer her actual and future needs; CONSIDERING the evidence provided to the fact that X has more chance to receive services in City D than anywhere else; CONSIDERING it would be prejudicial for X to be moved again before another solution is found; CONSIDERING this rehabilitation centre has to be temporary; CONSIDERING the necessity to find a foster place urgently where the child’s needs will be answered; FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; DECLARES that the rights of the child were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection under

section 2.3 a), 3, 4 and 7;

AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES: RENDERS the following provisional measures; ENTRUSTS the child X to a rehabilitation centre namely the City D Group Home until November 23, 2020; ORDERS that the frequency, modalities and degree of supervision of the contact between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES contacts between the child and her parents by any technological way; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to find a foster family for X; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to take into consideration the specific needs of X in this research of a foster family; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to inform the potential foster family about the entire situation of X (background, psychological needs, etc.) in the respect of confidentiality imposed by the law, to allow the potential foster parents to take a decision about their commitment; ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to present a plan of reintegration in a Foster family during the Court term of November 23, 2020; ORDERS that the potential foster parents be present at the court to testify; ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; ORDERS the parents to collaborate to the execution of the present decision; ORDERS that X receive health care and services required by her situation; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present decision; FIXES the continuation of the hearing under

section 95 to November 23, 2020, at 9:30 am, in City C. [ 47 ] On November 23, 2020, the hearing was postponed because the DYP planned to make Dr. Beltempo testify without having produced any report. The continuation of the hearing was fixed for February 26, and the previous measures were maintained. [ 48 ] On February 26, the DYP lawyer informed the Court that a foster family was recently founded. Dr. Beltempo was present and testified. He gave explanation about the attachment disorder and he said being very happy to hear that Mr. D and Ms.

E accepted to foster the child. [ 49 ] Those persons were already foster parents for X and were met by Dr. Beltempo while they were fostering the child and while they were living in City B. According to the psychologist, this couple was very interesting to know more about the situation and to make sure that they make the good intervention with the child. Dr. Beltempo has only good words about this family. [ 50 ] Dr. Beltempo explains the situation of X. According to him, her attachment issues started while she was still at her parents’ place where she witnessed numerous events of conjugal violence.

She was always in an insecure situation. This attachment disorder continued to be aggravated by the numerous placement she went through. Those various placements and moves cause her a feeling of reject. She tried so many times to have a stable place to stay, and each time, it was a failure. When she is stress, the symptoms of her disorganized insecure attachment are more present. [ 51 ] Dr. Beltempo mentions that X needs a very special foster family. The future foster parents have to be properly prepared and accompanied. They must commit to be involved on a long term basis.

This risk is the fact that X feels being another time in test and being convinced that they will reject her again. She will need to be reassured about the fact they will be there for her no matter what will happen. [ 52 ] For Dr. Beltempo, this foster family is the best option for many reasons. Indeed, they are currently living in City D and doing so, X could continue to go to the same school, with the same teachers and the same friends. She will also be able to continue her follow- up with Ms. [Social Worker 3] to avoid another link break.

Finally, this will permit a smooth integration with the collaboration between the Group Home and the foster family. [ 53 ] Questioned about the time frame, Dr. Beltempo explained that he would generally suggest being very cautious and to take the time to do such integration, but in the situation of X, he suggests proceeding with the integration as soon as possible. Indeed, it is reasonable to think that X will request by herself to be entrusted in this foster family and, moreover, she needs to know where she will live.

She is old enough to understand that she could be supported in the 2 places, the Group Home and the foster family. Dr. Beltempo insists on the fact that for Native children it is possible to create multiple healthy attachment. So, more opportunities she has to create such positive bonds, more her best interest is fulfilled. [ 54 ] Regarding the contacts with the parents, Dr. Beltempo recommends that she be authorized to have phone calls from them as she requests for that. But he suggests that X not be informed about the physical or phone contacts to be organized to avoid any deception. [ 55 ] Dr.

Beltempo recommends that all the professionals involved in the situation be part of the integration process for everyone to have the same information. Dr. Beltempo is available to collaborate with the team, as he knows the situation very well. [ 56 ] The DYP worker confirms that the foster parents will receive all the support that they need and they have the desire to commit

for a long-term basis. [ 57 ] As requested by the Court, the potential foster parents were present and testified. Mr. D addresses himself first and immediately said to the Court that he would like to make something clear. [ 58 ] He said that maybe the Court was told that he and his wife had given up on the child, but that was not true. He explains that his wife had the opportunity to complete her studies in City E and they decided to move for the school year with their biological daughter and with X. Unfortunately, they were not the tutor and doing so, they were not authorized to make the school change for X.

And, despite their numerous requests, the DYP did not make steps to make X changing school. Mr. D testifies with a lot of emotions about the moment when he and his wife had to say goodbye to X at the airport. They had hoped to be able to bring her with them until the end. [ 59 ] When they left, they informed the DYP about their address and phone number, saying that they would always be available to foster her if needed. Ms. E completed her school year in City E and continued her program in City D.

The couple moved in City D for the school year 2020-2021, and they registered their daughter at the school in City D. [ 60 ] They heard nothing about X until their daughter came back from school a day and told them that she had seen X at school and was made aware that she was living at the Group Home. The couple was very surprised to hear that and did not understand how such a young child could be entrusted to a Group Home. They communicate with the DYP to know more about that. [ 61 ] Mr. D testifies about that fact that he never had any issues with X when she was entrusted under their care.

She had developed strong bonds with them. They loved her as their own daughter and they were very sad to see what had happened since they left for City E. [ 62 ] The couple plan to spend the summer 2021 in City B with their extended family. They would like to be authorized to travel with X whoever live in City B. After, the couple plan to move again in City E because Ms. E was accepted to continue her studies at [College A] starting in September 2022. Once, she will have her diploma, they will come back in the North. X is in all those projects. [ 63 ] The parents were not present at the last day of hearing.

The DYP worker went many times at their place to invite them to come. The mother was made aware of the fact that a foster family had been found and she had been informed about their name. The mother confirmed that she agree with the placement in this foster family. Analysis [ 64 ] As everyone recognizes, the situation of the child is still endangered.

The parents are obviously unavailable to take care of their child on a permanent basis and do nothing to improve their situation. [ 65 ] The DYP was asking a rehabilitation centre because he failed to secure the child and to put an end to the situation in which she was endangered. The purpose of a rehabilitation centre is not a place where we can put a child because we do not know where to entrust him or her. It is just a place, where this time, it will be impossible for the caregiver to give up on her. This time, we will be sure that she will stay there and we will not be bothered with her situation.

This minding is in total opposition to the principle of the YPA, of the C-92, of the Declaration of Children’s Rights. [ 66 ] The child suffers from an attachment disorder and after being entrusted to so many caregivers to the point that no one is able to count, it is not necessary to have a diploma in psychology to know that this child suffered from an attachment disorder. And it is not necessary neither to be entrusted in so many caregivers to develop such attachment disorder.

Her situation of abandon is not a new one and as it was not enough, she was also abandoned by the organization who is supposed to take care of her and who have the mandate to put an end to the situation in which her situation and development are declared endangered. [ 67 ] Let us remember that the Youth Protection Act establishes maximum delays of placement. Those delays were determined to take into consideration the fundamental need of stability for the children.

In this situation, the delays are reached since a long time, but it had never been possible for the Court to render a permanent decision because a life plan was never presented because the child had never been stabilized enough to be able to submit a plan. [ 68 ] A parent who would move 3 times a year would be considered as a parent unable to insure the stability of the child.

How can the Court could accept that the DYP, who takes care of children in need of protection, can put a child in a worse situation, creating at the same time another reason for her situation to be declared endangered? [ 69 ] Finally, after the Court made it clear that the child will not remain in a rehabilitation centre, a foster family was found. Or should we say, a foster family raises her hand. Indeed, this foster family was truly presented as having given up on the child, but the evidence is totally different. This foster family never had intention to give up on the child and had made projects including her.

By the neglect of the DYP, this child, who suffers from an attachment issue and who need more than another a strict stability, was prevented from following her foster family for an administrative reason. [ 70 ] Such situation is unacceptable and the Court was provided with false information.

If this foster family would have remained in City E or would have moved to City B directly without going in City D, their daughter would have never seen X at school and we would still be looking for a foster family without knowing that very good foster parents were available. [ 71 ] The DYP has the responsibility to provide the Court with a true and complete information. That was not done in this situation. [ 72 ] Considering the seriousness of this situation and the very particular need of X, the Court will entrust her specifically to this foster family.

The Court will also include conclusion to authorize those foster parents to travel with the child and to make her changing school if needed. Indeed, Ms. E does not have to be prevented from continuing her studies and X does not have to be prevented to remain with her foster parents for an administrative reason.

[ 73 ] Also, X, as well as the foster parents, have rights to be properly supported before during and after the transition. Doing so, the Court will detail the services in the conclusions.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 74 ] GRANTS the application; [ 75 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 76 ] DECLARES that the rights of the child were wronged by the Director of Youth Protection under sections 2.3, 3 and 4 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 77 ] DECLARES that the rights of the child were wronged by the Régie Régionale du [Region A] under sections 8 and 92 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 78 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to a rehabilitation centre, namely the [ Group Home A], no longer than April 30, 2021; [ 79 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mr.

D and Ms.

E, as a foster family, starting no later than April 30, 2021; [ 80 ] ORDERS that the progressive integration of the child to her new foster family starts immediately; [ 81 ] ORDERS that X attend school on a regular basis; [ 82 ] ORDERS that X receive health care and services required by her situation; [ 83 ] ORDERS that the frequency, modalities (duration, place, in person and by any technological way, etc.) and degree of supervision of the contact between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 84 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate to the execution of the present decision; [ 85 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 86 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court. [ 87 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 88 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 89 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 90 ] 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; [ 91 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; AS CORRECTIVE MEASURES: [ 92 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to obtain the collaboration from the Director of Youth Protection of City D and to make sure that a Youth Protection worker will be assigned to assist the foster parents as long as they live on the [Region B]Ungava Coast; [ 93 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to organize a meeting with: • the Youth Protection worker from City C; • the Youth Protection worker from City D; • the foster parents; • Dr.

Joseph Beltempo; • X’s key worker from the rehabilitation centre, Ms. [Social Worker 4]; • the psychoeducator Ms. [Social Worker 3] to explain to the foster parents the role of each stakeholder, the child’s specific needs and to provide the appropriate explanations about the attachment disorder; [ 94 ] ORDERS that this meeting take place urgently to permit the integration of the child; [ 95 ] ORDERS that the child continue to benefit from a weekly follow-up with Ms. [Social Worker 4], psychoeducator, as long as she works for the City D Health Center; [ 96 ] ORDERS the City D Health Center to make sure that the child continue to receive appropriate service during Ms. [Social Worker 3]’s absences and vacation;

[ 97 ] ORDERS the City D Health Center to implement appropriate services to avoid instability for the child, during Ms. [Social Worker 3]’s absences; [ 98 ] AUTHORIZES period of respite for the foster parents for a maximum period of 72 hours each month and if such periods are requested by the foster parents, ORDERS that the child be entrusted specifically to the [ Group Home A]; [ 99 ] WITHDRAWS the attributes of parental authorities from the parents and GRANTS it to the Director of Youth Protection regarding the schooling and extracurricular activities; [ 100 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to complete and to sign the relevant forms and documents to register the child in a different school in case of foster parents’ moving; [ 101 ] AUTHORIZES that the psychoeducational therapy is suspended during the summer 2021 if the foster parents are not in City D; [ 102 ] If the foster parents have to move before the end of the measures, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that the psychoeducational follow-up be properly transferred to another professional available to provide weekly sessions; [ 103 ] In such situation, ORDERS that a copy of the medical file, including the report regarding the psychoeducational follow-up, is transferred to the new professional; [ 104 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide a report from the psychoeducator for the next revision; [ 105 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide appropriate support to the foster parents; [ 106 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide professional help to the foster parents, if requested by them; [ 107 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 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 Dates of hearing: October 8, 2020, February 26 and March 15, 2021