2018 QCCQ 14015, 2018 QCCQ 14015

Protection de la jeunesse — 184370 2018 QCCQ 14015 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000427-162 DATE: April 19, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...] 2016 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise and extend the order rendered on January 30, 2017, in respect of the child in order to place her until majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and duly represented by a lawyer. The mother asks that the child be entrusted to her. She also consents for measures to be put in place to support the family but only for a period of six months.

She consents to the deposit of the reports to value testimony of their authors, even if there are certain parts that are denied or constitute hearsay. [ 3 ] The father is absent and not represented, even if he was duly notified of the proceedings. [ 4 ] Regarding the child, she is represented by a lawyer acting under a legal mandate, considering her young age. He will provide his position after reviewing all the evidence.

Despite this, he agrees with the deposit of the reports to value testimony of their authors. [ 5 ] The evidence of the DYP is based on documentary evidence as well as the testimonies of the social workers [Social Worker 1] , [Social Worker 2], [Social Worker 3], the external educator [Social Worker 4], the psychologist Lisa Arsenault, the foster mother and police officer [Social Worker 5]. All the professionals heard during this case express worries about a possible return of the child to the maternal home. [ 6 ] The child was born on [...] 2016.

At the time, the parents were receiving services from the [Province A] child services, previous to their moving, to the province of Quebec, in October 2016. Since December 5, 2016, the child has been entrusted into foster care. [ 7 ] At the beginning, the parents were visiting the child on a regular basis but quickly the father lost interest and only the mother continued the visits. Since then, the father is basically absent from his daughter’s life. Moreover, he sends emails to the social worker containing threats directed to her and to other persons involved in the justice system.

This behavior demonstrates that he is not fit to be around the child and represents a danger to the professionals working with the family. [ 8 ] The mother goes to most of the visits but misses a few for various reasons. During these periods the mother was able to answer the basic needs of her child and has a fitting behavior towards her. Furthermore, her home environment was appropriate.

Then, it was noticed that the mother did not offer many stimulation activities to the child and the toys were not sufficient or adapted for her age. [ 9 ] During these contacts, the mother does not spend quality time with her daughter and makes other plans such as shopping, going to different places or is with her newborn instead of being alone with her. The mother demonstrates minimal affection toward her daughter and she is not interested in her whereabouts or even about her day. Despite that, the visits go well and there is nothing negative

or abnormal to report afterwards. [ 10 ] The mother shows difficulties regarding organization and takes time to put herself in action. She slowly applies the advice suggested concerning the child such as adapting the child’s bed, having appropriate toys for her age or to correctly install a child safety gate on the stairs. She also depends on other people like her friend who is also the grandmother of her latest born child namely Y. [ 11 ] The mother mentions not consuming drugs anymore and her drug-screening tests confirm this, except for one, done in June 2017 that showed cannabis in her system.

Despite her addiction problem, she never participates in any program in order to get help to resolve it. [ 12 ] Until recently, the mother did not show any stability in her life and was moving a lot. She was less involved in her child’s medical follow-ups. When her own mother passed away, she went from February 2017 to April 2017 to [Province B] to take care of her mother’s funeral and financial arrangements. During that time, she had no contact with the child but managed to have some with Mrs. C.

She wanted to move, once again, to stay in [Province B] and wanted to transfer her daughter, but finally came back in the area. As soon as she was back, she asked to resume visits with her daughter. [ 13 ] Since December 2016, she has been living with Mrs. C. She learns, later on, about her pregnancy and finally moved with the father of her newborn, Mr. D who also is the son of Mrs. C. [ 14 ] During the time of the different interventions of the DYP, the versions recounted by the mother seem to change from time to time concerning many subjects such as the status of her relationship with Mr.

D and even regarding the situation of the child’s father. It is difficult to know exactly, what the truth is, because the mother demonstrates a lack of transparency and honesty while dealing with the DYP. In fact, she does not trust them, therefore it is hard to know what is really going on in this household. [ 15 ] Then, some events happen in the mother’s life. The first one reported was on July 22, 2017, when she showed up at the CLSC with Mr. E, regarding some domestic issues involving her boyfriend Mr. D. She admitted, after being confronted having personal problems but they were not clearly defined.

We know for sure that she called Mr. E to seek help at that time. Until this day, this situation remains nebulous and without any real explanation. [ 16 ] Another event occurred in mid-January 2018 where the police had to intervene after a hung up 911 call coming from the residence of the mother and Mr. D. When the police officer arrived nothing particular was noticed. Once again the situation was not clear and no real answers were provided. [ 17 ] We learned afterwards that Mr. E tried to get involved quite a bit in the child’s life to a point where a formal notice had to be sent to him to stop such behaviour.

The reason for his involvement was due to a document supposedly signed by both parents, on November 3, 2016 [1] , giving the child up for adoption to him. [ 18 ] Considering the instability of the parents and their lack of involvement, the DYP proceeds in June 2017 to plan the integration of the child in a foster family with the objective of a long-term placement. It is mainly for this reason that the visits between the child and the mother were not increased.

The child has a good bond with her mother, but of course, she also has a good bond with the foster family, because the child is more with them than the mother. [ 19 ] On August 2017, the mother’s situation changed considerably in a positive manner, she began to get involved more in her daughter’s life and to implicate herself further. [ 20 ] The mother submitted herself to a parental capacity assessment which basically points out the instability of the mother regarding her residence, relationships and parental involvement. She made impulsive choices in the past.

But it also shows that since mid-August 2017, the mother adopted a new lifestyle and she is more stable. She is assiduous in her contacts with her daughter, she implicates herself with the DYP and she quit using drugs. She gave birth to another child and takes good care of her. [ 21 ] Moreover, the mother also participates in a psychological assessment. The report concludes that she had a very difficult past. She was placed in different families or rehabilitation centers. She has attachment issues due to her life’s history. She had a serious drug addiction which is recently under control.

She dropped out of school due to her cognitive difficulties. [ 22 ] However, the psychologist recognizes her positive changes of the past months and also mentions many good aptitudes concerning the mother towards her child while observing them. The mother and the child have a good bond. The child goes to her and the mother attends to her needs. Because of the fact that the mother fails to have a follow-up regarding her personal issues and that she has some intellectual limitations there is a risk of neglect if the child is returned to her.

Despite her limitations, the mother is functional. [ 23 ] On the mother’s part, the evidence is constituted of documentary evidence, as well as her testimony and the ones of Mrs. F and Mrs. Y. [ 24 ] The mother denies many allegations included in some of the reports deposited as evidence, such as having made any 911 calls, wanted to give her child up for adoption or any domestic violence between her and her boyfriend. [ 25 ] She explains the reason why she left for [Province A]and why she did not see her daughter for a few weeks.

She indicates that she tried many times to contact the foster family to have news of her girl, but they only answered on two occasions. She never contacted the DYP until her return in April 2017. Since then, the contacts were put back in place and she only missed two. Often her visits were cancelled by the foster family or by the DYP. She is sober since January 2017. She also does not have any contact with the child’s father since January 2017. [ 26 ] The mother explains her version of the event of July 22, 2017. She accuses, Mr. E of lying because he wanted to have her girl.

She denies having signed any document giving her up. She denies that Mr. D ever laid a hand on her or having been violent towards her. They only have disagreements like every normal couple. It happened 3 or 4 times that police officers showed up at her door for no valid

reason. Once again, she accuses Mr. E to have made those calls by hacking her phone to get some sort of revenge. [ 27 ] She explains her routine with her daughter when she is in her care. She recognizes that she made mistakes in her past but she is progressing and she is learning a lot by attending programs at Family ties. She has a lot of friends who support her and help her when needed. [ 28 ] Her visitations with her daughter are from Thursday 9 am to Friday 5 pm since January 30, 2018. Before the court order, she had only had visits from Thursday 9 am to Friday 11:30 am.

These were only increased by four hours and not more, even if the mother requested many times to obtain more contacts within the past month. She plays more with her daughter in order to stimulate her. She admits that Madam C is always present at her home during her child’s visits. She confirms that her daughter could attend daycare, there is one two houses away. To complete, the mother adds that the language barrier makes it hard to communicate with the workers who sometimes only spoke French, so it is possible that what she says is not well understood by the professional. [ 29 ] Mrs.

F testifies, she is a home-care worker, she attests that the mother regularly attends Family ties. She also observed the mother and daughter together and they get along great. All the times she was present at the maternal home, she never noticed any dispute between the couple. She also observed Mr. D play with the child. [ 30 ] Madam Y is also heard, she has known the mother since 2016 and she is her mother-in-law. She works as a home-care worker. She observed the child with the mother, and they have a nice bond. The child even cries when it is time to leave her mother.

She is frequently present at the mother’s and her son’s residence. She never witnessed any fights between them. [ 31 ] After assessing all the evidence, what is the best interest of the child? [ 32 ] First of all, the child’s lawyer asks that a progressive return of the child to the mother has to be considered with more conclusions namely attending daycare and follow-ups. [ 33 ] The evidence reveals that the mother was absent and less involved in the beginning of her daughter’s life and more specifically from December 2016 to April 2017.

She explains the motives of this absence although the Court finds it particular and unlikely that she has not communicated with DYP to get news of her daughter, saying that she did not know their number. Nevertheless, since the month of August 2017, the mother has involved herself much more with her daughter as well as with the DYP. [ 34 ] Other elements revealed by the evidence remain preoccupying. The police were called on two occasions at the mother’s home. When the police arrived on site, for each of these events, the situation seems calm and normal.

In short, no issues were reported. [ 35 ] The court does not believe the version of the mother. It is hard to believe that the 911 hang up call does not come from the house since the evidence shows otherwise. She admitted that the first time that she called 911 she was afraid because Mr. D was drinking. At the time she denied to her mother-in-law, Mrs. C, having made the call. In court, she says otherwise and admits that she is the one who did it. Basically, she lied. [ 36 ] The mother always seems to need somebody to do things . She does not take any steps to seek help or counselling.

The mother has to take serious steps as to involve herself in a therapy to help her receive the necessary services to resolve her personal problems. [ 37 ] Regarding the letter supposedly signed by the mother stating that she was giving her child up for adoption it was forged. She affirms that she never signed that document and it is obvious just by looking at it. The signature on that document is different from the one on her aboriginal card. On the other hand, this document was signed in front of a special clerk at the A courthouse.

The Court wonders who was present at the time of the signature and who really signed it. We cannot know what really happened only the person who took that oath could clarify this, but she was not heard. [ 38 ] The mother says she ceased consuming all drugs since January 2017. Later on, she admits having a relapse but only of marihuana. Furthermore, her drug test done on June 21, 2017, is positive for marihuana.

She then tries to explain that the drugs stay in the system between 3 to 6 months, but since she is not an expert it will not be taken into consideration. [ 39 ] The mother makes herself not responsible of anything, she always places the fault on somebody else or says she is the victim of a plot. According to her neither the foster family nor the DYP are adequate. In fact, we hear nothing about her own issues.

However, her lack of introspection is not sufficient, to not return her daughter to her care. [ 40 ] Another stunning aspect comes out in the mother’s testimony, namely, the fact that she constantly talks about her new-born Z when the situation concerns her eldest daughter and even when we ask her specific questions concerning the latter, she frequently answers referring to her baby and not to the child in question. [ 41 ] The DYP has doubts about the domestic violence going on in the maternal home but this is not supported by the evidence provided.

In fact, the police officer who intervened did not notice anything particular. [ 42 ] The evidence presented does not put aside an eventual return to the maternal home. It seems that a project to return the child home was not put in place. Since the beginning of the placement of the child, the mother has requested on many occasions to have more accesses to the child and they were denied. [ 43 ] Moreover, we cannot set aside that the mother benefits from a lot of help and support from her entourage.

She is also involved with resources that help her develop her parental abilities. [ 44 ] Furthermore, the Court finds it particular that after the last hearing, after ordering that the contacts between the child and the mother be increased and that they include sleepovers, that only four extra hours were added. Also, the DYP did not present any evidence on how the visits were going between January and the day of this hearing.

[ 45 ] What is also very worrisome and surprising is that even if, since the month of August 2017, the mother has demonstrated clear signs of positive changes in her life and of her stability, the DYP decided to continue and to move the child to a foster family with the specific goal of a long-term placement. It is like that DYP had already planned for the child to be entrusted elsewhere.

No real project was applied to promote an eventual return to the mother’s care. [ 46 ] Although the Court does not completely believe the mother’s version, the evidence presented does not convince the Court in a preponderant manner that the mother is not capable of adequately taking care of her child on a long-term basis. [ 47 ] Of course, the delay of placement is already passed. However, the Court cannot put that aside for the best interest of the child.

Obviously, there are concerns, but with adequate support, we can arrive at another result considering that the mother has demonstrated nice improvements for many months now. [ 48 ] The DYP blames the mother for her instability since the beginning of their intervention as well as the lack of stimulation of the child, the time it takes her to apply their recommendations namely concerning the toys and the safety gate.

However, they are all aspects that can be corrected or compensated by setting up appropriate services such as daycare as well as the support of her network. [ 49 ] We cannot expect a parent to be perfect, which is, obviously something impossible. The parents can have deficiencies but still be able to raise a child and ensure adequate development. Many services can be put in place to compensate for the difficulties and to help the parents continuing learning.

The mother nonetheless submitted herself freely to parental and psychological assessments as well as to drug tests somewhat showing her capacity to collaborate in the process in place and with different services even if it is not perfect. [ 50 ] Many assumptions of the DYP concerning the mother refer to her past and they mainly base their decision on that aspect. They only looked at that part of her life. But we also have to consider all the progress she has shown in the past months which seems to have been forgotten. Everyone focuses on her past. Of course, we have to consider it but what about the present time.

This option was less explored after assessing all the evidence in this case. [ 51 ] Admittedly the improvements in the mother’s situation are recent. It is premature to immediately entrust the child to the mother, we have to be certain of the stability and the continuity of her behaviors. On the other hand, a project that returns the child to the mother’s care must be worked seriously by DYP, following her recent progress, which was not done in this particular case. [ 52 ] Is a placement to majority really necessary at this time, the Court does not believe it is.

But many things remain preoccupying concerning the mother’s situation, namely, her lack of transparency and of honesty as well as the other points more extensively elaborated previously. And this, added to the fact that no real reintegration of the child was attempted with the mother by the DYP. [ 53 ] What the mother must prove in the next months is that her stability is not ephemeral and that she is able to maintain the skills she has acquired.

The mother will have to pursue her initiatives and will have to seriously consider submitting herself to a more in-depth follow-up regarding her personal difficulties. [ 54 ] The Court must make sure that, in the best interest of the child, the project of a return in the mother’s care is not viable before considering a placement to majority of the child. In fact, until now, this option was set aside to favor a placement in foster care. Before considering such a drastic measure, like a placement to majority, we have to consider the mother’s stability, for many months now.

In her own way, she is getting her act together and ultimately the child must benefit from this. Furthermore, she is taking care of her baby which is still entrusted to her, to this day. [ 55 ] The objective of the Law is the return of the child with the parent and the Court believes that as of now such reintegration must be considered in the course of the next months and the situation must be re-evaluated at the end of the measure to avoid, for the child, a new change of environment. [ 56 ] Like previously mention, even if the delay for placement is expired, this case is one of those exceptions falling into

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . It is in the best interest of the child that a real return to her mother should be foreseen because it was never done. There is still a possibility in a short-term period that the child could return to her family, after hearing all the evidence. The Court could not put aside that avenue because it seems that all the intervention did not aim to a return of the child her mother. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 57 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 58 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until October 1, 2018; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from extensive contacts with the mother including sleepovers to prepare a reintegration of the child into the maternal environment; [ 61 ] AUTHORIZES the child to benefit from a progressive integration in her maternal home environment as of June 1 st , 2018; [ 62 ] FORBIDS contacts between the child and the father; [ 63 ] ORDERS the mother to participate actively with in all the measure ordered in the present judgment; [ 64 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until October 1, 2018;

[ 65 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the director of youth protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: January 30 and March 15, 2018