2020 QCCQ 14729, 2020 QCCQ 14729

Protection de la jeunesse — 206952 2020 QCCQ 14729 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 460-41-002014-207; 460-41-002015-204; DATE : August 14, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Children’s mother -and- B Father of the child X ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED 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 declare the security and development of the children X and Y in danger for the motives of educational neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] As protective measures, the Director recommends to entrust the children to Mrs.

C, to authorize supervised contact with their parents, by a third party designated by the Director, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director, to authorize the possibility of lifting the said supervision according to the evolution of the situation, to address various recommendations to the parents and to order a social follow-up for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] At the hearing held on August 14, 2020, the mother is present and represented. She is in agreement with the motives of compromission.

She requests that the Court entrust the children to her and agrees to participate in a social follow-up. [ 4 ] The father [2] is present and not represented by a lawyer. He contests the placement of the children and requests that they be entrusted to the mother. He also agrees to maintain his supervised visits and to the different recommended follow-ups as long as the children return to their mother. [ 5 ] The children’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence, is in agreement with the proposed measures.

[ 6 ] He suggests that Mrs. C supervise the contacts between the children and their parents. Questions in litigation [ 7 ] Is it possible to return the children to their mother’s care? The situation of compromission [ 8 ] Y and X live with their mother. [ 9 ] Y has no father declared on her birth certificate. [ 10 ] X’s parents have been separated since July 2019. The mother has legal custody of the child and the father has supervised access rights according to a Superior Court order. [ 11 ] The father visits X irregularly, according to the mother’s decisions.

These contacts are supervised by a neighbour from the father’s community. [ 12 ] The mother says she has confidence in this person although she does not understand the language he speaks. [ 13 ] The father has an important drug and alcohol problem.

He has been hospitalized on many occasions for gastritis due to alcohol overconsumption. [ 14 ] The situation of both children was reported to the Director due to educational neglect, in October 2019 for Y, and in December 2019 for X. [ 15 ] It was alleged that the mother was entrusting the children to people with unresolved neglect issues. [ 16 ] When the Director started his evaluation, the delegate consulted police reports regarding the mother’s address. [ 17 ] It was thus discovered that on September 2019, the parents had a fight and a physical altercation that led to police intervention.

The children were present and witnessed this conjugal conflict. [ 18 ] The report states that the mother was "hysterical" and talking over the phone with the maternal grandmother, stating incriminating information. [ 19 ] It appears that there were violent acts from the two parties and they both pressed charges against each other, were arrested and freed with conditions among which not to communicate with each other. [ 20 ] The Director also read about a police intervention at the mother’s apartment on December 14 th , 2019, after a complaint from neighbours for abusive noise (yelling and loud music). [ 21 ] The police found the mother in the company of D, E and F. [ 22 ] The later was visibly under the influence of some drug.

He was found curled up, was very angry and shouting at the police agents. Mr.

F is also well known from the police. [ 23 ] The children were not present, but the mother refused to reveal where and with whom they were. [ 24 ] Since the event of September 23 rd , 2019, the mother reports that the children are scared at night and have aggressive behaviours. [ 25 ] She also says that although she had many quarrels with the father, this was their first violent one. [ 26 ] As to the allegations that she would often entrust her children to other people, this is what she had to say: [ 27 ] The mother admits that she asks E to babysit the children sometimes. She knows Ms.

E’s children were followed by the Director but affirms not being concerned as she knows that the file is closed and that Ms. E still has her children in her care. [ 28 ] Nonetheless, she is also aware that Ms. E’s children were exposed to conjugal violence. [ 29 ] She denies entrusting the children to her sister G although the Director has information to the contrary.

G had her children’s custody taken from her for youth protection purposes. [ 30 ] She admits entrusting them to the maternal grandmother, although this Court has ordered that she has supervised contact with her grandchildren, as well as her cousin, Ms. H, and her daughter. [ 31 ] She also admits to have asked a few times Mr. D to babysit the children. [ 32 ] On this subject, it appears that the mother is seeing Mr. D as he was often present at meetings with the delegate in the mother’s apartment.

She claims he is a friend of hers. [ 33 ] In fact, it was difficult for the delegate to know who he was at first because he refused to identify himself. [ 34 ] When the father was met by the delegate, he expressed his concern about the mother’s lifestyle.

[ 35 ] He claims she goes out in bars every weekend and does not know where and with whom the children are. [ 36 ] He also mentions that the mother has organization issues, that he used to do the groceries when they were together and that the food would not last the week. [ 37 ] He also admits that their relationship was conflictual. [ 38 ] Furthermore, the family is known from the Director due to previous reports. [ 39 ] In 2017, there was an evaluation for physical abuse from the mother towards Y that was considered not founded. [ 40 ] In August 2018, another report for educational neglect for babysitting problems was evaluated as not founded as well. [ 41 ] The family also received services from the CLSC (OLO and SIPPE). [ 42 ] The mother received the services from an educator for 3 years until she told her she was a racist and a liar and asked to close the file. [ 43 ] When the children are met by the delegate in the mother’s presence, they are very active and climb on their mother who does not seem to be able to control their behaviour. [ 44 ] Y has a delay in her language.

The mother mentions that she has registered the child to receive services from a speech therapist, but the child is still on a waiting list. [ 45 ] Both children lack social skills. X present with aggressive behaviour. [ 46 ] X is otherwise developing normally. [ 47 ] The evidence shows that the children were exposed to conjugal quarrels and violence.

Their security and development are compromised for psychological ill-treatment. [ 48 ] As for the educational neglect, the evidence supports the Director’s claim that the mother often entrust the children to many babysitters to allow herself to go out. [ 49 ] These babysitters are not always well chosen. [ 50 ] The duration and frequency of this entrustments remain unclear. [ 51 ] The mother’s lifestyle does not allow for the children to have the appropriate stability to answer their needs. [ 52 ] Even during the confinement due to the pandemic, she asked her cousin to babysit the children for her to be able to go to City A for different personal reasons. [ 53 ] The mother does not sufficiently stimulate the children for them to develop all their skills. [ 54 ] The motive of educational neglect has been proven by the Director and admitted by the parties.

The measures [ 55 ] Since the beginning of the intervention of the Director, the mother has reluctantly collaborated with the delegates. [ 56 ] She agreed to meet with them for the evaluation, but has not always been forthcoming with the information. [ 57 ] She is also impulsive, defensive, aggressive and can get angry very fast.

She has used inappropriate language towards the delegate. [ 58 ] She generally says that she will do as she pleases and that the delegate cannot tell her what to do. [ 59 ] She also refused the help of an educator, stating that she was not mistreating the children and that she did not need any help. [ 60 ] When the delegate makes a remark regarding her parenting skills or her lack of knowledge regarding age appropriate games and activities for her children, she lashes out. [ 61 ] When suggested that the children attend daycare, she refuses. [ 62 ] The grandmother also plays a

part in the mother’s negative behaviour towards the delegates. [ 63 ] In April 2020, the mother went with the children to live with the grandmother, arguing that she cannot live alone due to an operation for her bladder. [ 64 ] When the delegate asked to see her and the children, there was quite an event. [ 65 ] The delegate claimed that the mother said she would let go of her mother’s dangerous dogs if she ever came to the home. [ 66 ] The delegate also said that the mother threaten to leave with the children to Ontario.

[ 67 ] That is when the Director decided to seize the Court and to ask for the children’s placement on a provisional basis. [ 68 ] The Director claimed that due to the lack of collaboration from the mother, her residential instability, and the aggressive dogs, they recommended that the children be entrusted to the cousin, Ms. H. [ 69 ] On May 12 th , 2020, after hearing extensive testimonies, the Court decided that maintaining the children with the mother would likely cause them serious harm. [ 70 ] The Court entrusted the children to Ms.

C, as she presented a neutral setting for the children and that both parents approved the choice of this person to care for the children. [ 71 ] The Court also ordered supervised contact with the parents. [ 72 ] During the hearing, the mother explained her version of events.

She said that she asked the delegate to inform her of her visits in advance so that the dogs could be put in their cage because they could be aggressive. [ 73 ] The Director agrees with this version of events except that it was when they announced to the mother that they would be making unannounced visits that she said she would not be responsible if the dog attacked them. [ 74 ] As to her leaving for Ontario, she only said that she was contemplating living there because she had friends in that province and was looking for new beginnings. [ 75 ] The mother was very emotional when she brought the children to the Director’s office.

She was kicking and throwing the children's things. [ 76 ] She was yelling and inappropriate in front of the children. [ 77 ] X and Y had a very telling attitude. The boy was frowning and pointing with his finger, as if scolding the delegate. The little girl placed herself in front of her mother as if to protect her. [ 78 ] The parents are generally regular in their presence at the supervised contacts. [ 79 ] In the beginning, the children were cautious of their mother’s mood. For example, when they enter the visiting room, the children look at their mother hesitantly for a moment.

When they see she is in a good mood, they go to her. [ 80 ] At the first visit, the mother brings many educative toys and accepts the advice to bring less and concentrate the time with the children on a few of them next time. [ 81 ] On the second visits, the mother reacts when the children call her C. [ 82 ] On the third visit, there are some incidents regarding privacy and bringing the children to the bathroom. [ 83 ] The mother has difficulty decoding her children’s reactions which she confuses with her own desires. [ 84 ] For example, at a visit, when the mother played outside with the children with water guns, she got water in the children's faces.

Both children reacted negatively and Y was crying. [ 85 ] The mother did not accept the supervisor’s intervention and claimed the children were ok. [ 86 ] Even in Court, she minimizes the event and claims she did not send water on purpose in her children’s face. [ 87 ] Nonetheless, it is her inability to recognize that her children were in distress that is of concern. [ 88 ] On the whole, the mother’s visits are relatively positive while in the control environment of the offices of the Director. [ 89 ] As for the father, he generally plays with or beside the children, not intervening much in the educational aspect of the interactions. [ 90 ] His collaboration with the interventions is difficult.

He can be disrespectful to the delegate. [ 91 ] He can say to X that if he doesn’t listen and behave, he will spank him. [ 92 ] When the supervisor tells the father that such things are illegal here in Canada, the father answers that no effort is made to understand his culture and the conversation soured. [ 93 ] On the whole, he is generally passive and often had to be reminded what to do by the mother. [ 94 ] The mother is also testy when she is refused to do something that she would like to do with the children.

She can get angry when she is told how to do things. [ 95 ] The parents are observed as having a strained relationship. [ 96 ] Lately, the Director separated the visits with the parents at the mother’s request because she claimed that the father was not observing the instructions given and that she did not want it to have a negative effect on her.

[ 97 ] She also asked that Y not have visits with the father as he has no legal link to her. [ 98 ] Since they are entrusted to Ms. C, the children have shown much improvement over all. [ 99 ] At her arrival, Y was often waking up at night and was having tantrums. She could also have aggressive behaviour towards her brother. [ 100 ] X used to growl and point objects with his finger to get what he wanted. He also had difficulty sleeping. [ 101 ] In one week time, the children got accustomed to Ms.

C’s routine and their disruptive behaviour had greatly improved. [ 102 ] Y shows also some defiance towards men and sensibility to abandonment. [ 103 ] Mostly, this little 3 years old is already showing signs of low self-esteem. [ 104 ] X and Y are still being potty trained. [ 105 ] When they return from visits with their parents, the children show some reactions. [ 106 ] Y can seek attention by being arrogant and oppositional.

She can regress in her potty training. [ 107 ] X has once smeared his faeces. [ 108 ] These reactions tend to diminish. [ 109 ] At the last 2 visits, the children showed no reactions at all. [ 110 ] The children attend daycare 3 times a week.

They evolve positively. [ 111 ] Y has just started to receive services from the speech therapist. [ 112 ] The mother has mobilized herself tremendously. [ 113 ] In March 2020, she contacted Maison des Familles to have the children go to the halte-garderie and to participate in parenting workshops. [ 114 ] In May 2020, she started attending a parental group of 8 workshops aimed at improving the parental experience. [ 115 ] Also, in the beginning of May, she started participating in an individual follow-up and maintained weekly telephone meetings. [ 116 ] She also consulted at the CLSC Adult-Mental-Health service and is participating in a regular follow-up. [ 117 ] Already at the hearing, the mother is calmer and more in control of her emotions. [ 118 ] She explains that she is learning how to cope with refusal and frustration. [ 119 ] She communicates regularly with Mrs.

C to have news of her children.

Her exchanges with the foster mother are adequate. [ 120 ] Her collaboration with the social follow-up has much improved. [ 121 ] She asked that the delegate come to see her apartment which is all prepared to receive the children. [ 122 ] She is now asking for advice and accepting it. [ 123 ] Since the Director has been involved in this family, the goal has always been to maintain the children with their mother. [ 124 ] There has been many misinterpretations by the mother and her perception was otherwise (cognitive distortion), which led to her obstructions and strong reactions. [ 125 ] The mother showed feelings of persecution as she perceives the intervention of the Director aiming at bringing her down all the time. [ 126 ] The Court can see that the mother has turned around. [ 127 ] Her desire to properly care for her children is genuine and has always been present. [ 128 ] For example, the mother had taken steps to have legal custody of X, and had requested speech therapy for Y. [ 129 ] Now, she is starting to accept advice to improve her parental capacities and using the tricks and tools given to her for her interactions with the children. [ 130 ] Her emotions are better managed. [ 131 ] Thus, it is not surprising that the children are no longer reacting to their mother’s visits. [ 132 ] Now she must maintain her involvement in her different follow-ups to improve herself and her parental capacity.

[ 133 ] The expectations are the following: 1) That the mother maintain the management of her emotions; 2) That the children’s reactions after the visits are not concerning; 3) That the mother maintain the different follow-ups that have been started: a. Maison des familles : to better her parental capacities in terms of children’s stimulation b.

Mental Health clinic at the CLSC: continue her meetings as requested to deal with emotional instability and anger issues. 4) That the mother develop her sensitivity to the children’s needs and that she respects their routine acquired in their foster home. [ 134 ] It is now possible to foresee that the services of an educator, which are necessary, would be well received by the mother, although she stresses that the advice has to be constructive and not bring her down. [ 135 ] She is also in agreement now that the children attend daycare and has already taken steps to register them for this service. [ 136 ] The Court adds that the mother should also clean up her entourage.

She associates with people who have difficulties raising their children and who have children receiving services from the Director. [ 137 ] As for the father, he is quite passive and has not started any follow-up regarding his alcohol abuse.

He claims he wants to start with AA, but has not taken the steps yet. [ 138 ] He claims he wants to stop completely his marijuana consumption although stating that his daily marijuana use is at a level and time which does not impact his availability to his child. [ 139 ] But he lacks transparency and is not collaborating with the social follow-up. [ 140 ] His role in his son’s life will remain minimal if he does not himself more. [ 141 ] As for Y, he considers the child like her own and would like the mother to turn around and let him see her. [ 142 ] The Court finds that the evidence gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application for protection; DECLARES that the security and the development of the children X and Y are in danger for the motives of educational neglect and psychological ill-treatment; ENTRUSTS the children X and Y to Ms. C; AUTHORIZES , in the children’s favour, supervised contact with the mother, by a third party designated by the Director, taking note that this party will be Mrs. C, and that their frequency and modality will be upon agreement between the parties; TAKES NOTE of Mrs.

C’s consent to supervise contacts between the children and the mother; AUTHORIZES the possibility of lifting the said supervision with the mother, according to the evolution of the situation; AUTHORIZES, in favour of the child X, supervised contact with the father, by an authorized third party, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES the possibility of reintegration into the maternal family environment as soon as the situation allows; RECOMMENDS that the mother maintain her personal follow-ups (CLSC programme Santé mentale adulte, Maison des familles) as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; RECOMMENDS that the father take steps toward a follow-up regarding his consumption problem; RECOMMENDS that the father continue his medical follow-up in connection with his appetite and digestion; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered, namely that they collaborate to the elaboration of the intervention plan and the social follow-up; ORDERS that a person, working for the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y for a period of nine (9) months; RECOMMENDS that there be a bilingual worker associated with this file; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y 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 René Sévigny Counsel for the children M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Date of written judgment : November 11, 2020 Date of the hearing: August 14, 2020