2015 QCCQ 10142, 2015 QCCQ 10142

Protection de la jeunesse — 151481 2015 QCCQ 10142 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028621-142 Date: January 13, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 13, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a six ……….-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect to which she is exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated July 14, 2014 are as follows: 3.1. the mother has two (2) older children aged eight (8) and twelve (12), who have been placed in a foster family until their respective age of majority due to the mother’s longstanding history of neglect, substance abuse, unstable lifestyle and involvement in conjugal violence; 3.2. the home has been observed to be very dirty, with people coming in and out of the home and with drug paraphernalia and vials of medication; 3.3. the father has a history of being physically abusive to the mother and he threatened her with a hunting knife in the presence of the child’s sibling, around a year ago; 3.4. on July 8, 2014, marijuana was found in the home, the home had a smell of marijuana and the child did not have adequate sleeping arrangements; 3.5. the father admits that he consumes marijuana and says that he won’t stop; 3.6. the mother denies using marijuana; 3.7. the mother is breastfeeding the child while there are still concerns that she is consuming marijuana; 3.8. the mother has not been fully cooperative and transparent with the Director of Youth Protection; 3.9. the mother has not worked on her issues that led to the placement of the child’s siblings;

3.10. immediate protective measures were invoked on July 8, 2014 and the child was placed in a foster family; 3.11. on July 10, 2014, the Honourable Elaine Demers rendered a judgment or order under

section 47 of the Youth Protcetion Act; 3.12. the parents are not in a position to have the child return to their care (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to her paternal grandmother, at the exclusion of her parents, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Verreault-Nantel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and consented to all the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Lefebvre, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Sureau, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-14 as evidence: D-1: Court report, written by Social worker 1, on July 30, 2014; D-2: Youth court judgment concerning the child’s sibling, dated April 15, 2014 (April 12, 2012, February 4, 2011, August 5, 2010 and August 5, 2009 – filed herewith); D-3: En liasse, police reports no. [1], no. [2] and no. [3] (already filed); D-4: Assessment of Mrs.

C and. D, written by [Social Worker 2], dated August 27, 2014; D-5: Extract of progress notes from [Treatment Program A] at the "A" Hospital concerning the mother in 2010 (filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.); D-6: Random drug test of the mother, dated July 25, 2014; D-7: Random drug test of the father, dated July 24, 2014; D-8: Birth certificate; D-9: Extract of plumitif concerning the father; D-10: Addendum, written by [Social Worker 1] already filed; D-11: Parental Capacity Assessment of the father, prepared by Dr. Catherine Cloutier, dated October 30, 2014 (filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.); D-12: Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother, prepared by Dr. Catherine Cloutier, dated October 30, 2014 (filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.); D-13: Second Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated January 7, 2015; D-14: Pictures taken in the mother’s apartment on February 6, 2014. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the parents care deeply for their child. They acknowledge that her entrustment to her grandmother remains necessary but they appear committed to redressing the situation. They are strongly encouraged to make meaningful, long-lasting changes to enable them to meet their child’s needs. [ 10 ] However, the parents face significant challenges, as outlined in their parental capacity assessments. The conclusions and recommendations regarding the mother read as follows: Ms.

A is a 34-year old woman who displays a history where she did not have access to stable and nurturing parental figures. She was repeatedly exposed to trauma in the form of conjugal violence which her mother was a victim of, she has also witnessed the traumatic discovery of her father’s violent suicidal attempt and later death by the same cause. This history has had an impact on her capacity to structure herself and lead an autonomous life. Difficulty to stabilize herself regarding her living environment is an indicator of her difficulty to be structured.

Her parental limitations are chronic and span several years since the initial placement of Brandi when she was 2 years old. Ms. A struggles with mental health difficulties in the repetition of traumas since her childhood. Regarding her personality, she presents with dependent personality traits. Basic needs are also a challenge regarding instability of housing over the years. Poor work integration despite the potential to do so adds to the difficulties in developing her autonomy. Even though Ms. A has intellectual resources, emotionally she is depleted and suffers from port-trauma, which has not yet been treated.

Although there is some insight regarding the violence and neglect that she was the victim of starting in childhood, her insight is not yet transferred towards taking action such as seeking therapy to treat her repeated traumas. Ms. A presents as not being able to identify for herself what are situations where she is protected compared to situations where she is in danger. The latter leads her to be at risk of being a victim of further conjugal violence. […]

• It is recommended that Ms. A receive treatment for the multiple traumas that she has been a victim of. [2] [ 11 ] Regarding the father: Mr. B presents several risk factors and limitations to his parental capacities. He is limited in his capacity to cope with stress. He is fragile and is at risk of acting out his anger, which is related to impulse control problems and low tolerance to frustrations. […] Mr. B is motivated to take care of his daughter, he has been observed as being protective within a supervised environment.

Within that time however concerning elements linked to untreated conflicts with A present as being transposed in his attitude towards A’s parenting. The latter creates tension between the two. Mr. B’s needs for treatment are various: • Alcohol and substance use assessment and intervention; • Mental health treatment; • Treatment for conjugal violence and anger management. [3] [ 12 ] The father vehemently denies requiring any mental health treatment.

He does, however, agree to address his anger and substance abuse issues. [ 13 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well- founded and that the measures are in the child's interest. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to care of her paternal grandmother, Ms. C, at the exclusion of her parents; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Ms. C has been evaluated to become a foster family and has been recognized as such and consequently ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of her paternal grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts between the child and her parents have been occurring at the paternal grandmother's home, under her supervision, on Fridays from 6 pm until Sundays at 6 pm and that such contacts will be maintained, so long as they continue to be adequate and that they appear to be so; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that additional contacts between the parents and their child may occur at the parents’ home under the supervision of the paternal grandmother following a

schedule to be agreed upon by the parties including the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address, and RECOMMENDS that they maintain their dwelling in a safe and sanitary manner; [ 22 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the openness expressed by the parents to have the social worker visit their home; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take the necessary steps to address their personal issues, more particularly TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father has an intake meeting at Foster’s in order to deal with his acknowledged substance abuse on January 20, 2015 and that he intends to follow through with any measures that may be recommended and, consequently, STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that he do so; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father has agreed to participate in anger management counseling offered by the CLSC and, consequently, STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that he do so, as quickly as possible; [ 25 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to access resources in the order to address her personal issues, more particularly as a victim of conjugal violence and STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that she do so; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent to submit to random drug testing and, consequently, ORDERS that such tests be carried out; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents follow the recommendations in their parental capacity assessments; [ 28 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of their willingness to benefit from feedback from the author of the assessment;

[ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that an appointment will be scheduled, as soon as possible so that the assessments may be explained to them in detail; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain relevant information from any treating professionals working with the family TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any form of verbal or physical violence in the presence of their child; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Youth and Family Centres A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maïa Sureau Attorney for the child Me Mélodie Verreault-Nantel Attorney for the mother Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the father TD/vl