2014 QCCQ 14082, 2014 QCCQ 14082

Protection de la jeunesse — 142130 2014 QCCQ 14082 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001484-127 DATE: April 24, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on […], 2007 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents a motion asking the Court to extend a previous Court decision and to order the placement of X in a foster family until she reaches the age of majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother, present, is represented by Mtre. Michel Grenier. The child has been met by her counsel Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault. Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The mother admitted all the allegations of the petition which are: 3.1.

The mother's collaboration with the Youth Protection is still irregular; 3.2. The mother had difficulties to follow the scheduled visits with the child; 3.3. On August 2013 the mother accepted to meet with a psychologist; 3.4. On October 18, 2013 the mother left the community for several days after she received family allowance; 3.5. On October 26, 2013 during a visit, the child had to be returned to the foster family as the mother was intoxicated; 3.6. On October 31, 2013 the mother's phone line was disconnected; 3.7.

On November 1 and 4, 2013 Youth Protection had to intervene with the siblings as the mother was intoxicated; 3.8. On November 13, 2013 a visit had to be cancelled as the mother was intoxicated; 3.9. On December 8, 2013 as scheduled, a full week of reintegration was tried with the mother; 3.10.

However the mother was unable to provide and prepare lunch food for school and the child had to be returned to the foster family. [ 4 ] On August 23, 2012, the Court has declared the security and the development of the child, who was 4 years at that time, endangered because she was victim of sexual abuse committed by the common-law spouse of the mother, B. The Court also decided that the child was still at risk to be victim of sexual abuse. [ 5 ] The child had been placed on March 24, 2012 following the disclosure of the sexual abuse.

The mother signed an agreement on voluntary measures on May 26, 2012. [ 6 ] X has been living in a foster family since March 2012.

[ 7 ] On August 21, 2013, the Court was seized by a petition under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , asking for an extension of the placement of the child in a foster family until January 21, 2014. The evidence revealed that the mother was not in regular contact with her child, not really cooperative with the social follow-up. It was not clear if the mother believed that her common-law spouse has sexually molested her daughter. The Court agreed to extend the placement of the child due to the fact that reintegration was impossible and that the mother was to be assessed by a psychologist in the following days. [ 8 ] This assessment is filed in evidence.

It is relevant to quote parts of this assessment: « Questioned, she feels that she lacks the capacity to take good care of four children, even if she loves them dearly. […] She certainly lacks critical thinking. […] The clinical scales show a rather significant elevation on the scale indicating a Dependant Personality structure. According to the authors of the test, such a profile is typical of a person that has learned not only to turn to others as her source of nurturance and security but to wait passively for their leadership in providing them.

She is searching for relationships in which she can lean on other for affection, security and guidance. There definitely is a lack of initiative and autonomy.

Such person has learned the relative comfort of assuming a passive role in interpersonal relationships, accepting what kindness and support they may find and willingly submitting to the wishes of others in order to maintain. […] The validity scales integrated in the test show that the subject is an extremely naïve person that lacks introspection and probably struggles with important emotional problems. [1] » [ 9 ] The psychologist, Hubert Van Gijseghem, concludes: « Mrs A presents a Dependent Personality structure in that she leans on others for nurturance and support and submits easily to the wishes of others.

Being limited cognitively and having at least mild identity problems, she effaces herself to be accepted and "adopted" by someone who she sees as stronger than herself. Parental capacities seem limited, by her own admission and she is indeed at risk of putting a "nurturing" relationship with a man on a higher priority level than the interest of her children. Hence, probably, her denial of abuse. She however states that she now admits the abuse since her boyfriend fled and abandoned her. She indeed struggles with identity problems and some bizarre thinking, especially about physical or somatic symptoms.

Her problems interfere with sound judgment. The M.M.P.I-2 personality test suggests that a psychotherapeutic intervention will be complicated by the reticence of this person to recognize the psychological basis of her symptoms. If the therapist imposes himself/herself too quickly, the subject will abandon therapy. This kind of person also expects the therapist to fulfill her needs for dependence and to furnish precise solutions to all problems.

Because of the high suggestibility of such a person, an approach based on suggestion could be beneficial. [2] » [ 10 ] From this assessment, the Court believes that the mother has very limited parental skills and that she will put a priority her own needs. [ 11 ] This type of personality represents a danger for a child like X, because the mother would not be capable of protecting her child from an abusive spouse. [ 12 ] When she met with the psychologist, the mother said that now she believed that her daughter was sexually molested but the reasons for such belief are surprising: she thinks that it must be true because her spouse "ran away and did not show up in Court on August 21, during the Court hearing".

It indicates that she does not believe that her child was sexually abuse because she has revealed such abuse, but because of the behaviour of Mr. B towards herself. [ 13 ] The Court is not very surprised to learn that the mother decided to resume her relationship with Mr. B last February. Given this situation, the mother has clearly made the choice of maintaining her relationship with her spouse at the expense of her relationship with her daughter. [ 14 ] The Court had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the foster family where the child has been living since February 2013.

The child is well-adapted to this environment and both foster parents are willing to take care of X until she reaches the age of majority. [ 15 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the last Court decision; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the X, born on […], 2007, are still endangered; [ 19 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family, namely the one of C and D, until she reaches the age of majority; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child, her mother and the foster family for the same period;

[ 21 ] ORDERS that access rights between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother be and remain sober at all times when in presence of X; [ 23 ] ORDERS the mother not to put the child in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 24 ] ORDERS the mother not to put the child in presence of Mr.

B; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the youth worker; [ 26 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES the foster family, namely […] C and D, to sign any documents pertaining to child's health, schooling, social activities, traveling including a passport; [ 27 ] ORDERS to any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault Counsel for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: March 27, 2014.