2017 QCCQ 18663, 2017 QCCQ 18663

Protection de la jeunesse — 179005 2017 QCCQ 18663 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-028058-147 DATE : January 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2013 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the previous order rendered on October 26, 2015, entrusting the child to the foster home of the maternal great aunt, along with various corrective measures for a period of nine months. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the child’s return to the mother’s care cannot be envisioned given her lack of sufficient progress regarding the issues previously identified by the Court.

The same applies to the father who has not seriously participated in either the social follow up or any of the therapeutic services proposed. Consequently, any contact with his daughter remains prohibited in accordance with the previous order. [ 3 ] Given the expiration of the delays provided for at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act (the Act), and considering that the child is flourishing in her current environment, the Director is asking the Court to extend the previous placement order until the child’s age of majority. [ 4 ] The mother submits that she has cooperated with social services, has completed a therapeutic follow-up and has succeeded in making significant changes to her lifestyle. As a result, she considers that she will be in a position to assume full responsibility of the child within a relatively short period of time.

Consequently, she consents to the extension of the current measures but only until the end of the summer so as not to impose on the child a change of daycare. [ 5 ] The father is neither present nor represented. According to the social worker, he was informed of the date of the hearing but refuses to participate in these proceedings. His current whereabouts are unknown as he refuses to provide contact information to the social worker with the exception of a cellular phone number. [ 6 ] The attorney representing the child is of the opinion that a permanent plan is required.

She considers that the progress demonstrated by the mother is insufficient to conclude that a return in the short term is feasible. However, she believes that a five-year extension best serves the child’s interests. T HE C ONTEXT [ 7 ] A brief

summary of the prior judicial proceedings is required in order to appreciate the situation as it stands today. [ 8 ] On July 7, 2014, Justice Ruth Veillet declared that the child’s security and development were endangered as a result of psychological ill treatment and a serious risk of negligence. The evidence revealed that the child had been exposed to multiple incidents

of conjugal violence. Furthermore, the young mother was unable to properly care for the child considering her unstable lifestyle and inadequate parenting skills. [ 9 ] At the time of the judgment, the Court acknowledged the mother’s recent efforts in regards to obtaining therapeutic services, maintaining an invested role in the child’s care and stabilizing her lifestyle.

However, her progress was incomplete and the child was entrusted to the maternal grandmother for a period of ten months. [ 10 ] Throughout the course of the intervention, the mother maintained her involvement in the child’s care but demonstrated insufficient improvement to allow for the child’s return at the end of the order.

On April 27, 2015, the Court adhered to the parties’ joint proposal to extend the entrustment order to August 1, 2015 and to authorize reintegration during that period. [ 11 ] However, on October 26, 2015, the Court granted the Director’s motion for revision and the child was entrusted to her current foster home.

The evidence revealed that: - the mother had been physically abusive towards the maternal grandmother, at times in the presence of the child, leading to the grandmother’s emotional breakdown; - the mother had stolen and extorted money from the maternal grandmother on various occasions; - the mother was physically abusive to the maternal grandfather, in

part in the child’s presence; - the mother admitted to smoking marihuana regularly; - the Director learned that the parents had resumed their relationship and the mother was expecting another child with the father; - the mother allowed unauthorized contact between the child and the father; - the mother lacked transparency with the social worker. [ 12 ] Judge Veillet concludes as follows: [19] Le Tribunal est obligé de constater qu’encore une fois, la mère ne prend pas les mesures pour que l’enfant puisse lui être confiée à brève échéance.

Elle devra se mobiliser sérieusement au cours des prochains mois pour démontrer sa capacité à reprendre charge de sa fille.

The mother [ 13 ] The Director’s position can be summarized as follows: - The mother has failed to address her anger and victimization issues; - The mother has not sufficiently developed her parental capacities; - The mother has not been transparent with the social worker and her cooperation is insufficient; - The mother fraudulently used the maternal grandmother’s credit card for a total of 10 000 $ worth of purchases; - The mother continues to use marihuana on a daily basis, often in the home when the child is not present; - The child is thriving in her current placement and has developed a strong attachment to her foster parents. [ 14 ] The evidence reveals that many of the Director’s concerns are founded. [ 15 ] The mother concedes that she consumes marihuana daily, often in the home when the child is not present.

According to the testimony of both the social worker and the educator, the smell is noticeable on a fairly regular basis. [ 16 ] Although this has been an issue for over two years, the mother tends to dismiss the social worker’s concerns. The mother explains that she uses marihuana to relieve chronic pain due to a medical condition. In this context, she doesn’t see her consumption as a problem and has consequently failed to take any serious steps to address her dependency.

Furthermore, she has been unable to completely refrain from smoking marihuana in the home despite understanding that her daughter will likely be exposed to the stench during visits. [ 17 ] The mother’s failure to address this issue is all the more unfortunate considering that the supervision of visits has been maintained in part for that very reason. [ 18 ] The allegations of credit card fraud are not contested. The mother admits to having used the grandmother’s credit card without authorization. She concedes that this was done out of spite because she blames her for the child’s placement.

It should be noted that the fraud occurred while the grandmother was receiving in-patient treatment at the Douglas hospital for emotional distress. [ 19 ] The grandmother is currently struggling to make the minimum payments and the interest is accumulating. Until now, the mother has contributed approximately 300$ to the debt. She expresses the intent to further contribute but her financial means are limited (she is unemployed) and she in fact continues to require her mother’s financial assistance at times. [ 20 ] The mother’s lack of transparency remains an issue.

For example, the mother had advised the social worker that she was returning to school and the visitation

schedule was adjusted accordingly. It was only months later that the worker learned that the mother had attended merely the orientation session but none of the classes.

[ 21 ] The same situation occurred regarding individual therapy sessions that were to begin in January 2016.

According to the worker, the mother deliberately misinformed her that she had been going consistently whereas a subsequent verification revealed that she had only attended one session. [ 22 ] In addition, the mother confirms during her testimony that she has previously been dishonest with the worker pertaining to her contact with the father although she claims that she is no longer in touch with him. [ 23 ] With respect to her need for counselling, various services were available but the mother either refused to participate (Auberge Shalom) or failed to complete them (Shields of Athena), with the exception of a twelve week counselling service at the CLSC geared towards developing insight into her personal relationships.

The mother attended all of the meetings between May and September of 2016. [ 24 ] Since July of 2016, the mother has consistently cooperated with [Social Worker 1], an educator whose mandate was to supervise visits at the mother’s home and provide assistance designed to improve her parenting skills. His observations led him to work on structure, routine, activities and coping methods to deal with the child’s non-compliant behaviour. [ 25 ] The visits take place in the home once a week for six hours.

Although the mother is aware that she is entitled to plan activities outside the home and is in fact encouraged to do so, she chooses not to. [ 26 ] Over the course of Mr. [Social Worker 1]’s intervention, the mother has been able to successfully implement strategies designed to improve her parental skills but continues to struggle with consistency in some areas. For example, the importance of naps has been emphasised repeatedly but the mother systematically resists adhering to this recommendation.

According to the foster father, the child is overactive, agitated and defiant following visits, most likely as a result of fatigue. [ 27 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1] is of the opinion that the mother tends to over rely on others to assist in the care of the child. He explains that during the visits, the presence of extended family members is not uncommon. Often, they will take over the care of the child while the mother occupies herself in other ways.

The educator estimates on average that the child is cared for by others approximately 35 % of the time. [ 28 ] Along with the consumption of marihuana, this inconsistency with routine and the failure to follow through with certain recommendations also justifies, according to the social worker, the continuation of supervision during the visits. [ 29 ] Another concern is the mother’s reaction to stress. It was noticed that she tends to become irritable and impatient with the child.

According to Mr. [Social Worker 1]’s testimony, this was a “ constant coaching point ”. [ 30 ] Nevertheless, the mother is slowly progressing and clearly has a strong bond with the child. She has improved her organizational skills and has made notable efforts in this regard. The educator testifies that the child is comfortable in the mother’s home and he has observed sincere mutual affection between them. [ 31 ] Although the mother has cooperated with Mr. [Social Worker 1], she appears to be at odds with the social worker in charge of the application of the measures.

Beyond her lack of transparency, the mother demonstrates a fair amount of indifference towards the latter and tends to disregard her suggestions, calling them pointless. The mother’s testimony in fact confirms that she is highly critical of the social worker’s intervention. [ 32 ] The social worker testified to the difficulties that she has experienced in trying to provide services. She explains that her attempts to offer counsel provoke in the mother irritation and dispute, at times in the child’s presence.

The social worker adds that the mother tends to improve her level of cooperation only in the months prior to a court date. The child [ 33 ] The evidence demonstrates that the child is flourishing in her current foster home. Her previous nutritional problems, fear of the dark and sleeping difficulties are no longer an issue. She attends daycare on a full time basis and no behavioural problems are observed. She has a strong attachment to the foster parents who are committed to her on a long-term basis. [ 34 ] As previously mentioned, there is no doubt as to the bond that exists between the child and her mother.

The one constant since the beginning of the intervention is the mother’s consistent presence in the child’s life. [ 35 ] That being said, the child is sensitive to the mother’s impatience and generally reacts with increased defiance. This remains a significant issue in their relationship keeping in mind the history of the child’s exposure to hostility and violence.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 36 ] Although the evidence reveals that there has been some improvement in the mother’s personal situation and in her parental skills, the child’s return to her care in the foreseeable future remains unlikely. [ 37 ] Since the previous order was rendered, the mother continues to minimize difficulties that merit serious consideration, namely with respect to interpersonal relationships, drug consumption and consistency in the home. [ 38 ] Her persistent lack of transparency with the social worker is indicative of her conviction that she doesn’t require help, as is her refusal to consider counselling beyond the sessions completed at the CLSC. [ 39 ] Her proposal to assume full-time care of the child in the short term is submitted without any concrete plan.

Her testimony to the effect that she intends to stop smoking marihuana in the home and to seek alternatives for her pain management lacks credibility given the length of time that this problem has persisted and the absence of any concrete steps to that effect. [ 40 ] Her failure to appropriately address the issues previously identified hinders her progress and perpetuates the need for restrictive

measures such as supervised visits. The fact that she has maintained a strong relationship with her daughter is certainly positive but it cannot make up for the deficiencies in her parental skills that have yet to be corrected. [ 41 ] The Court has noted the extent of the improvements that the mother has accomplished. They remain insufficient to conclude that an exception as defined in

section 91.1 of the Act has been established. [ 42 ] Taking into consideration the needs and best interests of the child, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director provide the continuity of care, stable relationships and living conditions that the child requires. [ 43 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 44 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 45 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered as a result of psychological ill-treatment as well as a serious risk of negligence; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the foster home of Mrs. C and Mr.

D until her age of majority, taking judicial notice that home will remain confidential (address and telephone number); [ 47 ] ORDERS that the child’s daycare/school remain confidential to both parents; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and mother be determined by the DYP but minimally one visit every two weeks and including a degree of supervision if necessary; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from all forms of physical and verbal violence in the presence of the child, including the use of derogatory comments or threats of physical harm; [ 50 ] ORDERS a prohibition of contact between the child and her father; [ 51 ] WITHDRAWS from the father the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding medical, education, extra- curricular activities, and travel, including obtaining a passport, and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign the aforementioned consents; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents engage in therapeutic services to address their relationship issues, including conjugal violence and anger management, and periodically report their progress to the DYP; [ 53 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 55 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer if necessary; [ 56 ] THE WHOLE until [...], 2031.

SIGNED IN CITY A On January 27, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Miriam De Blois Attorney for the D.Y.P. Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the child Judith Shapiro-Knight Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 26, 2016 and January 6, 2017