2019 QCCQ 15971, 2019 QCCQ 15971

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910373 2019 QCCQ 15971 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001681-136 DATE: August 6, 2019 (written judgment rendered on November 27, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , presently detained at Centre A, [...] 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 extend a decision rendered on August 22, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2011. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family, until April 15, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow a return of the child to her parents, and recommends entrusting her to a foster family until August 6, 2020.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel. She admits some of the allegations, and she agrees with the recommendations. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Mocanu Culuri. He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the recommendations. [ 5 ] X, who is 7 years old, is present and represented by Me Boudreau. Considering her age, there is no admission, but the measures are not contested. History of the situation [ 6 ] On November 28, 2013 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. The family was known since 2010.

Between January 2010 and June 2015, the DYP received five reports regarding neglect and psychological ill-treatment. Between 2010 and 2012, X and her sister Y were entrusted on provisional agreement and four voluntary measures were signed. Since 2013, she is entrusted to extended family members. Despite her commitment, the mother continued to drink during the visits, and she had a lot of problems because of her consumption as many police interventions were made. The child voiced being afraid of her parents. The mother recognized that the only solution for her is a long-term therapy.

The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted X in a foster family for six months with a life plan to be set out in the last two months. The Court authorized the reintegration with the parents if the situation allows for it. [ 7 ] On May 21, 2014 , the Court revised the situation. The child had been entrusted to her paternal grandmother. The father was detained in Town A for conjugal violence. The mother did not entrust a treatment centre, but she stopped drinking as she is pregnant like she does for each pregnancy.

The Court maintained the child with her paternal grandmother, Ms. C until she reaches her majority. [ 8 ] On July 31, 2017 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a foster family.

[ 9 ] On September 8, 2017 , the Court revised the situation of X who was almost 6 years old. Her paternal grandfather passed away recently. The uncle who lived at the grandparents’ place reacted strongly to his father’s death. The grandmother was overwhelmed with the situation and gave up fostering X. An aunt said being available. The mother still displayed alcohol issues and was waiting to attend B Treatment Center. She maintained frequent contact with her daughter. The father was detained since Mai 2016, and was supposed to be released in March 2018.

The Court entrusted the child to a foster family until August 31, 2018. [ 10 ] On August 22, 2018 , the Court revised the situation and the evidence revealed that the aunt gave up on February 7, 2018, because of X’s behavioural issues. The aunt accepted to take care of her until a new foster family was found. In March 2018, she was transferred to Ms. D. On May 18, 2018, the mother came back from [Center B], but relapse soon after. [Center B offered her to come back and she accepted.

The Court entrusted X to a foster family until April 15, 2019. [ 11 ] On February 27, 2019 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to a foster family. [ 12 ] On April 16, 2019 , because of a lack of time to proceed, the Court maintained the status quo, postponed the hearing in May 2019, and ordered that the grandmother be evaluated as a potential foster family. [ 13 ] On May 17, 2019 , still because of a lack of time to proceed, the Court maintained the status quo and postponed the hearing in August 2019. Facts [ 14 ] In March 2018, X was entrusted to Ms.

E who had been informed of her behavioural issues. Despite that, Ms. E confirmed her availability to take care of X until she reaches her majority if necessary. [ 15 ] In September 2018, Ms. E called the DYP worker saying being overwhelmed with X’s behaviours. According to her, there are issues at home and at school. The DYP offered support to make sure that Ms. E would not give up. A routine was put in place which helped, but the situation remained difficult.

A request was made for the services of an external educator, but as only one was available for three villages, it was impossible to offer this service to Ms. E. Fortunately, Ms. E is a community worker and she was able to receive services from her colleagues. [ 16 ] Regarding the accesses, X came to Town B for a home visit, but a few attempts were needed to convince her to take the plane to go back. She made a lot of crisis.

Visits were also organized for the mother to go to Town C to see her daughter, but the mother missed her flight many times. [ 17 ] On December 23, 2018, when the mother came back with her daughter, X had a bloody nose and the mother was unable to explain what happened as she was intoxicated. [ 18 ] On January 16, X went to Town B for a funeral, but when Ms. E came to pick up her, she made an important crisis. For Ms. E, it was too much and she gave up.

X stayed at her grandmother’s place. [ 19 ] The paternal grandmother offered to foster Y and X, but the DYP worker wanted to investigate the environment prior to a placement.

The grandmother is very attached to her granddaughters, but as she just lost her son, and the father is supposed to come back at her place soon, the DYP would like to be sure that she would be able to deal with the situation and to impose routine and structure to the children. [ 20 ] On February 7, 2019, X was met by the police regarding the event of December 23, but she made an important crisis and the assistance of the social worker and the grandmother was required to calm her down. [ 21 ] At school, X is described as a good student as she had good marks, but her behaviour is very difficult.

She makes important crisis when something is refused to her. Also, she is known to have sexual behavioural issues. [ 22 ] In February, the services of an external educator was offered to the grandmother to help her to impose a routine and to do homework. At the end of the month, X displayed very aggressive behaviour and a potential placement in a rehabilitation centre was discussed. [ 23 ] At the same period, before the father is released, the parents planned to live at the grandmother. The DYP worker explained to the grandmother that if it happened, X will have to be removed from her care.

She understood and she renounces to have the parents under her roof. As the parents, she was against a placement of X in a rehabilitation centre, so she agrees with intensive services. [ 24 ] The father was released on March 4, 2019. Despite the prohibition of contacts, X had been seen in her parents’ presence. It happened many times despite the recalls, the explanations and the help of the grandmother. [ 25 ] In March, X opened up more about the physical abuse and said being afraid of her mother. The mother recognized her responsibility and said being sorry for what she did.

She called her daughter and apologized. [ 26 ] In May, the DYP heard that since March, X was not going to school regularly. [ 27 ] The DYP worker suggested the possibility to request a psychological evaluation to know how to intervene with X. The mother testifies agree with the psychological evaluation for her. [ 28 ] Since the last order, the mother did not seek help regarding her personal issues.

She had the intention to stay in Town D after her therapy, but despite the help offer to find a place to stay in Town D, she decides to come back in Town B. [ 29 ] On November 8, 2018, the mother was arrested and detained while intoxicated. Because she was pregnant, a baby alert was signalled.

[ 30 ] In November 2018, the DYP worker spoke with the parents twice to obtain their consent for a psychological evaluation for their son F, but they refused each time. [ 31 ] The father was supposed to be released in March 2019.

When the DYP worker asked him what his plan for the future was, he said he had the intention to live at his mother’s place, and that he was ambivalent regarding his relation with the mother. [ 32 ] Although the mother completed A’s program on two occasions, she still displays alcohol issues, but she is able to improve her situation each time the father is detained for a long period of time. [ 33 ] In March 2019, as scheduled, the father was released from detention.

The oldest children, Y and X, were very frequently at their parents’ place. [ 34 ] The DYP worker did not know if the father had conditions regarding communication with the mother, as the father refused to give him the authorization to communicate with his parole officer. When questioned by the Court, the DYP worker admitted he was not aware that those conditions were not confidential. [ 35 ] The father was present in Court on April 16, 2019, when the hearing had to be postponed. [ 36 ] Between April and May 2019, multiple events of conjugal violence occurred between the parents.

The situation was degrading rapidly. [ 37 ] On July 22, the mother called the DYP worker. She was crying. The father would have ended the relation as he had another girlfriend in Town E and said he did not want to be involved in B’s life, the baby. Finally, by the end of the day, the parents were drinking together. [ 38 ] On July 23, the DYP worker met the parents, who had consumed a lot, the prior night. They said that it was the last time, and planned to enter C Treatment Centre.

The mother recognized that the conjugal relationship was a toxic one, but she refused to break up, even if she is conscious that this relation is one of the principal reasons for the placement of her children. [ 39 ] On July 26, another violent conjugal event occurred, and the mother was hospitalized. On July 29, the parents started a follow- up with the Social Services to register at [Center B]. [ 40 ] Finally, the father was arrested and detained, but as the mother refused to press charges, he was released. Both were intoxicated.

Questioned about her intention, the mother said she was very ambivalent regarding her relationship. [ 41 ] At the hearing, the father was detained again in Town B, waiting to be transferred in Town F. His lawyer went to see him at the police station, and he accepted to come to the Court house. He was present for the beginning of the hearing, but after the lunch break, he decides to take the plane to go down South, even if he was informed that the Court could make him travel the day after. [ 42 ] The DYP worker testifies that the mother generally exercises her accesses, except if she is intoxicated or injured.

She collaborates with the services and recognizes being in an abusive relationship. According to the DYP worker, for now, the mother’s main issue is her toxic relationship. [ 43 ] The mother testifies and admits that she is doing much better when her spouse is not there. When she is alone, she is able to take care of her children. When he is there, as he consumes, she also consumes, and he becomes violent. The relation has been the same since the beginning, for the last 12 years. [ 44 ] She said that she has decided to end the relationship. She sees that the family situation always follows the same pattern.

He is released, and after only five months, he is detained again. [ 45 ] She says that today, she has more evidence of his lack of collaboration, as he preferred going to Town F instead of staying here to support her in her request. [ 46 ] The mother has been a prenatal worker at the hospital for nine years. She is now on maternity leave. She would like to use this time to meet with Social Services before going to [Center B]. [ 47 ] She is financially independent and in the household she was the only one with a job. The mother pays for everything (rent, food, etc.).

Analysis [ 48 ] The situation of the child remains endangered mostly because of the toxic conjugal relationship and the alcohol consumption. [ 49 ] The father is detained and does not plan to have the children back under his care in the near future. [ 50 ] The situation of the mother is not an easy one. For the last 12 years, she has stayed in a toxic and violent relationship. She is able to regain some form of stability each time the father is detained.

Today, the placement of her two youngest daughters is requested, and she really feels that she needs to take drastic steps. [ 51 ] She is scared for her daughters. She is also scared for her baby, and wants to be sure that he won’t have the same childhood as the others. [ 52 ] She realizes that everything that happened in her life is due to her toxic relationship. She was hospitalized many times because of injuries. Her children were placed in foster families and moved from one to another because of the parents’ relationship.

[ 53 ] She seems to realize the seriousness of the situation, and she is able to name the origin of her difficulties. The Court encourages her to continue in this path, but told her that it wouldn’t be easy. The risk that the father comes back when he will be released is present. The further risk that she gets back with him is high. [ 54 ] The Court also told her that her desire to enter [Center A] to be far from the father is not a good reason to attend a therapy, but the Court understand her needs. [ 55 ] The mother will have to be supported with her desire to change her way of life.

The DYP will have to be present to accompany her through difficult changes, as it is always easier to remain in the same pattern. Changes are challenging, and require a lot of energy and willingness. [ 56 ] The mother deeply loves her children and the Court is convinced that, if she is well supported, the mother will be able to achieve her goals. [ 57 ] X has the chance to be at her grandmother’s place and to be very well taken care.

The situation regarding her school attendance was addressed, and the situation is now getting well. [ 58 ] Even if the situation is going well, it is important to remind that the grandmother had a lot of difficulties recently, and as any other foster family, she should be supported in her involvement. [ 59 ] The mother plans to attend [Center B] with her son. There is no reason to deny this request. She has to be encouraged in this process, and it would be the best opportunity for her to address her issues while developing strong bonds with her baby at the same time.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 60 ] GRANTS the application; [ 61 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2011, are still endangered; [ 62 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are also endangered under

section 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 63 ] ENTRUSTS X to her paternal grandmother, Ms. C as a foster family if she is accredited as such; [ 64 ] ORDERS that a psychological evaluation of X be performed and all recommendations be followed including any other evaluation recommended by the psychologist; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the contact between X and her mother, take place at least three times a week, and the

schedule determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after considering the interdiction for the mother to be alone with the child; [ 66 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between X and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 67 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her siblings be favoured; [ 68 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 69 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person or by phone, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 70 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 71 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or other resources in the community (A after care program, AA meetings, etc.) concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 72 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through the Social Services or other resources in the community concerning his alcohol and anger management (violence) issues, once he is released from prison; [ 73 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 74 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 75 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 76 ] THE WHOLE until August 6, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Caroline Daniel, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Ana-Maria Mocanu Culuri, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 6, 2019