2020 QCCQ 12904, 2020 QCCQ 12904

Protection de la jeunesse — 209319 2020 QCCQ 12904 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000752-177 DATE: August 3, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] 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 review and prolong a decision rendered on September 26, 2019, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2016. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family until August 8, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation allows to return the child to his father with services until May 31, 2021. [ 3 ] The child has an older brother, Y who is almost 6 years old.

The Court is also seized with his situation. Position of the Parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she would like her children to be entrusted back under her care. Subsidiarily, she agrees with the recommendations, but asks for extended contacts. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by Me Boumeftah. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Sinnett.

On her client’s behalf, Me Sinnett submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in his best interest. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On March 2, 2017 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The parents signed a voluntary measure on May 2016, because of their alcohol consumption issues and their violent conjugal relationship. They have good parental capacities when they are sober. The father was facing charge of sexual assault. The mother was detained for a while, and she consumed while pregnant with X.

The parents are conscious about their issues, the impact on their young children and said that they reduced their alcohol intake. The Court declared that the security and development of the children were endangered, maintained the children under the parents’ care, ordered that the father never be alone with the children until the criminal process be finished, the whole until May 24, 2017. [ 8 ] On May 23, 2017 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that the parents continued to reduce their alcohol consumption and worked on their relationship.

The mother tried to register to a healing session, but she did it too late and hope to be accepted to the following one. Before that, she planned to seek help through the Social Services. The father did not receive professional help. The children developed very well and had very strong bonds with their parents. The Court maintained the children with the parents and prolonged the previous measures for a period of six months.

[ 9 ] On October 31, 2017 , the evidence revealed that the parents, mostly the mother, continued to struggle with alcohol consumption issues. Because of that, police interventions were needed, but each time the children’s basic needs were met and they were always safely babysat when the parents consumed. The father was not able to obtain services from the CLSC as too many requests for services were received and the father was on a waiting list. He received support from his father. The mother was able to start a follow-up with the Social Services and collaborated very well as she did with the DYP service.

The mother was scared to lose her children. The Court prolonged the previous measures until November 1, 2018. [ 10 ] On October 31, 2018 , the Court postponed the hearing under

section 95 YPA as the mother was detained and entrusted the children to a foster family as provisional measures. [ 11 ] On December 13, 2018 , the evidence showed that the mother was pregnant and gave birth to a girl in June 2018. The three children were entrusted to a relative in Town A. Both parents continued to struggle with their alcohol addiction issues and their unstable conjugal relationship. The police had to intervene a few times since the last order. The mother had to respect some conditions of release, but as she did not, she was detained. The mother would like to attend Portage with her two youngest.

The father did not seek help, but wants to have his children back and continued to pay for daycare in Town B even if they are entrusted in Town A to secure their place. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family until October 31, 2019. [ 12 ] On August 10, 2019 , Dr. Joseph Beltempo signed a psychological assessment report regarding the child Y. This assessment was requested by the DYP because of the important outburst of the child. The DYP asked to evaluate a potential FASD, ADHD, the impact of the exposure to conjugal violence and concerns about sexualized behaviours.

The professional noted that since the beginning of the placement (October 2018), the child had been entrusted to five different foster families. At that time, the DYP was thinking about entrusting him down South which, according to the psychologist, was not a good idea considering his difficulty to adapt. The professional recommended: • That Y is referred for a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder assessment with either Dr. Michelle Larose, child psychiatrist who services Town B or Dr. Goyer, pediatrician at the Montreal Children’s Hospital.

He also needs to be assessed for stimulant medication to address ADHD . • I would recommend play therapy with a child psychologist begin as soon as possible when he is down in Town B. This probably can be organized on a private basis. If he stays in Town A, he should be referred to the 0-5 yr old clinic of services. The most important and significant intervention is to help Y work through the past trauma and process the trauma with a child psychologist, who has experience with young children and to address some of the underlying aggressiveness which has been a result of negative-modeling that he has witnessed.

Y also needs to work on physical and sexual boundaries. Programs such as Good-Touch Bad-Touch are highly recommended. He needs constant supervision and boundary setting in all environments such as Home, School, Bus and Playground. Pro-social behavior can be rewarded in small increments with less supervision. There is still time and a good opportunity for change.

After the Mother’s completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment program, perhaps she can be included in the therapy sessions, if deemed appropriate by the DYP, and depending with whom Y be living. • Y needs to be provided with parenting which is neutral and not confrontative as much as possible and that a lot of patience needs to be exercised. Structured times for activities and advance notice for changes must be emphasized. • In terms of schooling in September 2019, we suggest that Y attend a classroom with the smallest group of children as possible. A small student/teacher ratio of 5-6 children would be ideal.

Given that, Y’s socio-emotional and attentional problems supersede his academic potential, he would greatly benefit from a Shadow/Educator . Time out for behavioral management must be very short so he could make the link between misbehavior and consequences. • The classroom needs to be arranged in such a way with the least amount of stimulation as possible and tasks be presented one at a time. He should be seated at the very front of the class.

When he goes to Kindergarten a small sized group rather than a larger group is recommended, otherwise, he will become quickly disorganized and act out. [ 13 ] On September 26, 2019 , the Court revised the situation and the evidence showed that Y was moved from different foster families since the last order. He had important emotional crisis, reason why he was assessed by Dr. Beltempo. That being said, it was noted that he functioned pretty well at the daycare, a well-structure environment. In July 2019, he was entrusted to his paternal aunt in Montreal.

He started school there with reduced hours of presence in class. He received services from an ergotherapist, a speech therapist, a pediatrician and a child psychiatrist. The parents still had alcohol consumption issues, and the mother was on a waiting list for two different therapy centres. The parents did not mobilize themselves enough to think about resuming the care of their children. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family and took acknowledgment that Y would be entrusted to his paternal aunt in Town C, the whole until August 8, 2020.

Facts [ 14 ] Following the last decision, as planned, the child remained with his paternal aunt in Town C. Unfortunately, because of his important behavioural issues, Y had to change daycare twice. Around the Christmas Holiday period, the paternal aunt asked for respite as she was overwhelmed with the situation. The children came for a visit in the North and came back in Montreal until the pandemic situation started. [ 15 ] The aunt admitted being unable to take care of two children not going to the daycare during this period.

It was decided to entrust the children back under their father’s care with the help of the mother while the father was at work. The children were there from March 18, to April 16, 2020. [ 16 ] On April 16, 2020, the children visited their maternal grandmother’s care in Town A. They did well there. [ 17 ] In Montreal, Y met with Dr. Nathalie Boulanger who referred him for a sand therapy with Ms. [social worker 2]. The appointment with Dr. Larose had been postponed due to the facts Dr. Larose asked that Y be stabilized before and she plans to meet with

him in October 2020. [ 18 ] As mentioned in the previous decisions rendered in the situation of the children, the parents are loving and caring for their children. They have very good parental capacities when they are sober. [ 19 ] They were not involved with the police since the last decision, but their relationship remains unstable and unclear. [ 20 ] The DYP worker and the extended family members raised concern regarding the mother’s transparency about her consumption as she sometimes appears intoxicated.

The collaboration with the DYP worker is not the best, and the mother asked a few times to have a new worker.

According to the DYP worker herself, the communication is not ideal between her and the mother, but that does not prevent her from being able to offer a clinical follow-up. [ 21 ] Now the mother has a regular follow-up with the Social Services and that will certainly have a positive impact on her impulsivity issues. [ 22 ] The father offers a good collaboration with the DYP and regularly communicate with the intervener to inform her about his situation. [ 23 ] The communication between the parents remain difficult. The mother did not wish to testify, so the Court did not have the chance to hear her point of view.

The father testified and expressed that the communication is generally good as long as the mother remains sober. He said that he can organize the contacts between the mother and the children, but would prefer to have a calendar with the possibility to adapt it if the children ask for more visits with their mother as he is totally open for that. [ 24 ] Y did not start school in September 2019, as it was planned. Indeed, because of his behavioural issues, it was decided with the parents not to register him at the Kindergarten and to maintain him at the daycare. He is registered at school for the end of August 2020.

According to the father, the school is already informed about his difficulties, but the father was not able to give details about the services he needs. [ 25 ] The DYP worker explains that the evaluation recommended by Dr. Beltempo specifically regarding the FASD was not done mostly because of COVID-19.

But when confronted to the fact that this evaluation has been recommended in August 2019, and the confinement was ordered on mid-March 2020, the DYP worker admitted that there is no specific reason for this evaluation not to be done. [ 26 ] The DYP worker does not know neither if the school had been informed about the services needed to facilitate Y’s schooling according to Dr. Beltempo. She will communicate with the school to let them know. Analysis [ 27 ] Y needs a very constant and structured environment.

Lately, the father demonstrated being able to offer an appropriate supervision to his sons and also to ask for help when needed. [ 28 ] Even if he had been able to take care of them on a short period recently, he have to understand that it could be more demanding to do it on a regular basis.

He will have to adjust himself to this new reality. [ 29 ] The service of an external educator will be helpful for the father to achieve this goal. [ 30 ] Moreover, Y has specific needs and the father has to understand the importance of those services and he has to be available to attend those services with his son. [ 31 ] Y would have had the opportunity to benefit from the evaluations recommended by Dr. Beltempo while he was in Montreal, but unfortunately, for no specific reason, those services were not asked.

As it has not been done, the Court will order that those evaluations and services be offered without delay. Unfortunately, considering the child will be in the North, he will probably have to travel down South to receive those evaluations. [ 32 ] Also, the services recommended facilitating Y’s schooling will have to be implemented without delay to be sure that the child start on a good path. [ 33 ] The communication between the parents remain difficult sometimes. The parents have to work on these issues to ovoid the negative impact of those conflicts on the children.

Indeed, the children suffer from those disputes and it prevents them from evolving positively. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS the application; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2016, are still endangered; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the father; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of their current situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child Y, receive the services recommended by Dr. Beltempo in August 2019, including an assessment by a

child psychiatrist and that all the recommendations be implemented without any delay; [ 40 ] ORDERS that Y continue to benefit from a close medical follow-up for his ADHD and that all recommendations be followed including regarding the medication; [ 41 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to make sure that the school is informed with Dr.

Beltempo’s recommendations and that those recommendations be implemented as soon as the beginning of the school year; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from engaging in any form of violence or aggression in the presence of the children; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate for her substances issues; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through Social Services for their relationship issues and anger management; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the children and the children’s family receive the services of an external educator for the duration of the measure; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the children and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection according to a calendar; [ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to perform unannounced visits at the mother’s place when the children are present; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the parents’ presence at appointments with professionals and their level of involvement in the services provided; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the parents until May 31, 2021; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2021. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnet, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 3, 2020