2020 QCCQ 5354, 2020 QCCQ 5354

Protection de la jeunesse — 205009 2020 QCCQ 5354 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001258-201 DATE : September 28, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- UNDECLARED FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [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.). Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the Court declares that the security and development of the child X is in danger for the motive of serious risk of neglect. [ 2 ] As protective measures, the Director recommends that the Tribunal entrust the child to the mother’s aunt, Mrs. B, taking notice of her intention to evaluate the living environment of Mrs. B, and order that the child be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs.

B, according to a positive accreditation. [ 3 ] She also recommends that the Court authorize supervised contact with the mother, according to the modalities set with the Director, excluding the mother’s spouse, Mr. C; failing agreement, the contacts are to take place once a week and all contacts between the child and Mr. C would have to be prohibited. [ 4 ] She also recommends other measures including a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 5 ] At the hearing on July 30, 2020, the mother is present and is not represented by a lawyer. She revoked her lawyer’s mandate

just before the hearing. Nonetheless, she insists to proceed and be heard, as well as her partner, Mr. C. [ 6 ] She recognizes the situation of compromission and agrees with the measures except for the prohibition of contact between the child and Mr. C. [ 7 ] The child does not have a paternal filiation declared at her birth certificate. [ 8 ] The child's lawyer, after hearing the evidence, agrees with the conclusions sought by the Director. Questions in litigation [ 9 ] Should contacts with Mr. C be prohibited?

The situation of compromission [ 10 ] X’s situation was signalled when she was born. [ 11 ] At the time, it was alleged that the mother took speed and that she experimented residential instability and would have a borderline personality. [ 12 ] The evaluation revealed that the mother present with personal difficulties, namely she has a learning disability, a generalized anxiety disorder and has been through several depressions in her life. [ 13 ] This was later confirmed by a letter from her doctor, Dr.

Allen Phillips. [ 14 ] She also recognized that she was using drugs but says that she stopped in July 2019. [ 15 ] Her partner, Mr. C, is known from the Director.

He is the father of 2 children who have been placed in foster homes without the possibility for them to return to his care. [ 16 ] He presents with difficulties dealing with impulsivity, aggressivity and drug consumption limited to marijuana. [ 17 ] The Director evaluated that the mother was able to fulfill the child’s basic needs but that she needed to be supported. [ 18 ] The evaluation report dated November 27 th , 2019 concludes that the child is at serious risk of neglect. [ 19 ] An orientation table took place on December 20 th , 2019.

A thorough evaluation was suggested in order to better match the services to the needs of mother and child and coaching was suggested to help the mother gain trust in herself in regards to her parental capacities. [ 20 ] While working on the orientation phase of its process, the delegate went for a visit at the mother’s home on February 24th, 2020. [ 21 ] During that visit, Mr. C was present and presented with a negative and aggressive behaviour towards the Director’s representative.

The visit was interrupted as the delegate felt threatened. [ 22 ] The delegate then received a message from the nurse of the CLSC’s SIPPE program. When they spoke over the phone, the nurse explained that on her last visit, Mr. C was aggressive towards her and got even more aggravated when she spoke about kindergarten. [ 23 ] Mr.

C told the nurse she could not come back to their home. [ 24 ] On February 25 th , the delegate and another worker, accompanied by the police, went back to the mother’s home to get the child and entrust the baby to a foster home or to convince the mother to go to a housing resource. [ 25 ] Mr. C was very aggressive, yelling, punching the walls.

The mother refused to go to a resource and gave the child to the worker. [ 26 ] On February 27 th , the Court rendered a provisional order by which the child was entrusted to a foster home, supervised contacts with the mother were authorized, and all contacts between the child and Mr. C were forbidden. [ 27 ] At the time, serious doubts were raised regarding the mother’s drug consumption and the Court took notice that there would be random drug testing.

Interim order and stay at the [CENTER A] [ 28 ] On March 12th, 2020, the Court was informed that the mother had accepted to stay at the [Center A] for an evaluation of her parental capacity. [ 29 ] The Court declared the security and development of the child in danger for serious risk of neglect and rendered an interim order that would allow this stay when a place would be available. [ 30 ] In the meantime, the same measures that were ordered at the provisional hearing were maintained. [ 31 ] Mr. C asked to be heard by the Court, who gave him the status of an interested person and allowed him to file documents.

[ 32 ] He filed a letter from the [Center B], stating that he had been attending an anger management program. [ 33 ] Mr. C also stated that he was no longer required to attend and offered to give further evidence regarding this follow-up at the next court hearing. [ 34 ] The Court maintained the interdiction of contact with Mr.

C until the final hearing. [ 35 ] On April 16 th , 2020, the mother integrated the [Center A]. [ 36 ] She only remained for one week, as the mother no longer wanted to stay at the resource. [ 37 ] The child was sent back to her foster home. [ 38 ] On May 28 th , the Court postponed the hearing to allow the Director to evaluate Mrs. B, the child’s maternal aunt, as a proximity foster home. [ 39 ] The evaluation being positive, the child was then entrusted to Mrs. B according to the modified interim measures rendered on June 25 th , 2020 which allowed a progressive integration up until July 1 st .

Final hearing on the measures [ 40 ] On July 30 th , 2020, the Court proceeded to hear the evidence and representations on the final measures. [ 41 ] The [Center A] produced a report of the short mother’s stay. [ 42 ] The professionals from this organism state that that the mother shows little autonomy in the care she gives to her child. [ 43 ] When she is offered advice, she often is disrespectful to the workers and reacts negatively.

She is defensive and perceives the interventions as reproaches. [ 44 ] She does not have initiative and is often uncomfortable to care for her child. [ 45 ] She is able to provide with basic care but requires help when she gives a bath or changes her son’s diaper or clothes. [ 46 ] She does not seem interested in playing with the child and does not know how to stimulate him. [ 47 ] She does not react when the child cries and is late in going to pick him up to comfort him. [ 48 ] She is also lacking in her personal care, regarding hygiene and medical health.

For example, she states not taking her medication regularly for her anxiety. [ 49 ] The mother is often on the phone with Mr.

C and reiterates many times that she will not leave him. [ 50 ] In the end, she will affirm not being comfortable at the [Center A] and that she chooses her boyfriend over her child who she says is better off in a foster home. [ 51 ] Even though her stay was only 7 days long, the professionals were able to conclude that the mother has a hard time decoding her child’s needs and that she shows great immaturity. [ 52 ] She does not recognize her difficulties and is not collaborating with the services offered. [ 53 ] During supervised visits, the same difficulties are observed. [ 54 ] In May, some visits were interrupted due to the child’s crises. [ 55 ] It was then observed that when the child leaves the car of the foster family, he tights his facial muscles and becomes red and cries.

During the visits that followed the mother showed to be able to comfort X but the child’s remained fragile emotionally, trembling and with watery eyes. [ 56 ] This resumed until July when it occurred again as X was entrusted to Ms.

B. [ 57 ] The Director presents that the prospect of the mother developing her parental capacities appears very glum. [ 58 ] This is also in concordance with her personal history. [ 59 ] The mother mentions having been a victim of severe physical abuse as well as sexual abuse. [ 60 ] As mentioned, she suffered from severe depression, presents with anxiety and has a learning disability. [ 61 ] Her participation in the social follow-up is also mitigated. [ 62 ] Sometimes, she offers false information but the workers wonders if it is by lack of transparency or of comprehension. [ 63 ] She neglected or refused to provide with the vaccine booklet and the health insurance card for some time.

[ 64 ] She is influenced and dependent on her partner Mr. C, who also has personal difficulties. [ 65 ] The judgments rendered regarding Mr. C’s daughter, now 3 years old and already declared admissible to adoption, state the following elements regarding the father. [ 66 ] In the decision rendered on October 4 th , 2017, Mrs. Justice Julie Beauchesne states: «[10] The father is the oldest of a family of three children. His parents are still together. [11] It appears that he suffered physical abuse when he was young (slaps, was hit by ruler or belt) by his mother.

He mentions that he always felt apart in his family and was resentful towards his mother. [12] He started using drug when he was 14 or 15 years old to help him manage his impulsions and his emotions. [13] The father presents aggressiveness and has problem controlling his emotions.

He adds that he has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder related to a sequestration. [14] He has criminal records (death threat, breach of conditions, prohibition of carrying weapons following death threats and careless use of a firearm). [15] He also had another child from a previous union who was entrusted to his maternal grandmother due to a serious risk of neglect. (…) [18] As for the father, he has impulsive and controlling behaviours. [19] During the intervention of May 19 th (moment when the child was entrusted to a foster family), the father insulted the social worker, came near her several times, raising his voice and was physically threatening. [20] When the father was met, he told the social worker that his past has nothing to do with her daughter, that he is a fit father and that he does not need any help. (…) [24] The reports also show that the father did not take any step to address his problems. [25] At the hearing, the father testifies.

He mentions that the mother is not able to take care of their daughter. But he believes that she could with some coaching.

He adds that he took care of his nieces and he worked in daycare. [26] He admits that he might forget things sometimes, that there are new technics and he is open to receive help. [27] When he is questioned regarding his aggressiveness, he says that he used to have a problem managing his emotions but he worked on it and thinks that he got better. [28] He does not want to go to Ressource pour Hommes saying that he does not like the services. (…) [33] When he was asked why his older child was placed, he named the quarrel, the violence and his aggressiveness. [34] Questioned as how he addressed his problems, he says that he recognises his aggressiveness, that he works on it and sees an amelioration. [35] Confronted to his outburst at the hospital, he says that he reacted to protect his family adding that “he is not a puppet”. [36] He also admits that he has difficulties accepting criticisms, that he was bullied when he was younger, that he had no friend and has difficulty trusting people. [37] As for the fact that he does not give access to his apartment to the social worker, he mentions that it is not suitable for the moment.

He is trying to clean his apartment saying that he had to move all his belongings from one locker to another. [38] When the child’s attorney tried to convince the father that it would be a good idea to collaborate with Ressource pour Hommes, he almost lost patience, said that he would go to shut people up, that he would not answer any more questions and will let his lawyer takes over. (…) [40] There is no doubt in the Court’s mind that the parents cannot be the caregiver for their daughter.

The personal issues of the father (impulsivity, traumatic experience, drug consumption) do not allow them to do so. » [ 67 ] In the decision rendered on December 12 th , 2018, Mrs. Justice Beauchesne notes that the father is still offering poor collaboration with the Director: «[7] It appears that the father offers poor collaboration and that he could be aggressive towards the social worker, using threats and often refused to meet with them. Furthermore, the father refuses to sign all kinds of authorizations for her daughter.

[8] The parents got involved to the program “Better Together” but their participation were minimal. The father even mentioned that he was attending the program only to please the social worker and mostly denies his inability to take care of his child.

He refuses to address his aggressiveness problem. [9] Regarding his cannabis consumption (5 to 10 joints per day), he does not believe that could alters his parental capacities. » [ 68 ] She later refers to a situation when the father made death threats to the worker. [ 69 ] She also notes: «[32] He denies being aggressive pretending that he is expressing his feeling and that he is entitle to do so. He expresses fears towards the police, the Government and the Director whom are all corrupt. » [ 70 ] The aggressive and disrespectful behaviour of Mr.

C towards the Director’s delegate is still present. [ 71 ] It was like so at the initiative of X’s placement in February this year. [ 72 ] Later on April 23 rd , 2020, the new delegate, [Social Worker 2], encountered the mother and Mr. C at a store. [ 73 ] The Court retains from the evidence that Mr. C stated accusations against her and the DYP and also said that his name should be erased from X’s file. [ 74 ] More recently, Ms. B asked the mother for Mr.

C not to be present when they were talking on the phone, because she could hear him make disparaging remarks in the background. [ 75 ] A full report from the Centre B was provided to the Court by the mother. [ 76 ] Mr. D, who signs this report, deals with people who have addiction and violence problems. [ 77 ] He states that Mr. C has a moderate drug addiction to cannabis to relieve his severe anxiety problem that can manifest in a panic attack. [ 78 ] Mr. C told Mr.

D that his anxiety started when his eldest child, his son now about 11 years old, was entrusted by the Director to the maternal grandmother. [ 79 ] It was suggested that he consult a doctor about this issue, but he said he preferred using cannabis. [ 80 ] Regarding his anger management problem, Mr. C says it comes from the fact that he was verbally and physically mistreated as a child and a teenager and from other traumatic events in his life. [ 81 ] He admits his frustration level towards adult strangers is very low, but states he was never violent against children or life partner. [ 82 ] When Mr.

D evaluates the risk factors that lead to inappropriate behaviours, he mentions, any intervention with a DYP delegate, due to past history. [ 83 ] Also, when he feels a threat, real or apprehended, he can lose his ability to make appropriate decisions. [ 84 ] He also has difficulty dealing with grief. [ 85 ] In conclusion, Mr. C knows about his anger difficulties and shows no ill will to anyone. [ 86 ] But Mr. D also mentions that his emotional scars are very important and that he would need psychological follow-up for many years. [ 87 ] In this context, what should be the contacts between the child and Mr.

C? [ 88 ] First of all, the Court points out that Mr. C is not the child’s father. He does not claim so, nor does the mother. X’s biological father would be somewhere in [province A]. [ 89 ] Mr. C then does not have any rights regarding the child. [ 90 ] Contacts with third parties are allowed only when they are in the child’s best interest. [ 91 ] The Court finds that this is not so in this case. [ 92 ] Mr.

C has proven that he is not able to work with the DYP, neither for X nor for his own children. [ 93 ] The mother’s contacts with the child need to be supervised and she needs to receive coaching. [ 94 ] There is no recognition from the mother that Mr. C’s behaviour is detrimental to the child. [ 95 ] The Court finds that the influence of Mr. C is already making it more difficult for the mother, who is already reluctant, to receive guidance from the Director.

[ 96 ] Although Mr. C now says that he would be ready to receive a psychological follow-up, Mr. D says it would take long-term therapy for Mr. C to change his behaviour. [ 97 ] The mother produces a witness from her neighbourhood who claims that Mr. C was good with her children. [ 98 ] This may be so, but the personal issues of Mr. C still need to be addressed. [ 99 ] All contacts between the child and Mr. C will thus be forbidden. The child’s situation in placement and the current ordered measures [ 100 ] Since his placement in Ms. B’s home, X has adjusted well. [ 101 ] Ms.

B is able to put limits with the mother and is collaborative in respecting the Director’s recommendations and the Court orders. [ 102 ] The mother also complies with Ms.

B’s requests. [ 103 ] Although the mother is no longer using drugs, there are other neglect factors that must be addressed. [ 104 ] The Director’s expectations are clear and have been mentioned to the mother: - to collaborate with the delegate; - to accept advice without feeling threatened; - to stimulate X and respect his rhythm; - to concentrate her attention on her child and priorities his needs; - to work in collaboration to understand the child’s discomfort at times when the visits occur. [ 105 ] Nonetheless, despite many reminders, the mother does not seem to know what to do to recuperate her child. [ 106 ] It seems her difficulties rely on her misunderstanding of these expectations. [ 107 ] The Director will have to evaluate if the mother is able to retain, apply and integrate his advice and guidance and to decide on a life plan for the child.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: PARTIALLY GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger for the following reason: - 38 b)2 o LPJ serious risk of neglect; ENTRUSTS the child to the mother’s aunt, Mrs. B; TAKES NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to evaluate the living environment of Mrs. B in accordance with the Act respecting the representation of family-type resources and certain intermediate resources and the negotiation process for their group agreements; ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of Mrs.

B, according to a positive accreditation; AUTHORIZE , in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with the mother according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection, excluding the mother’s spouse, Mr. C; failing agreement, the contacts will take place once a week; PROHIBITS all contacts between the child and Mr. C; ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely that she collaborate to the elaboration of the intervention plan and the social follow-up; ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year; ENTRUST the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Andréanne Lacasse

Counsel for the DYP M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the child Date of hearing : July 30, 2020 Last Exhibits deposed: D-7 and M-6