2017 QCCQ 17647, 2017 QCCQ 17647

Protection de la jeunesse — 178166 2017 QCCQ 17647 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031968-167 DATE : November 28, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2015 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on November 22, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child is exposed to verbal disputes between the parents.

The Director also reports that on November 25, 2016, the family residence was unhygienic. [ 3 ] On November 25, 2016, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to the father’s care. [ 4 ] On November 28, 2016, the parents signed a provisional agreement stating that they would not be together in the child’s presence. [ 5 ] On December 3, 2016, the parents were home together, in the child’s presence, against the provisional agreement they had just signed.

The child was again exposed to a conflict that required police intervention. [ 6 ] On December 7, 2016, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the father’s care, at the exclusion of the mother. [ 7 ] On January 30, 2017, The Director recommended, on a 3 month interim basis, that the child be entrusted to the father at the exclusion of the mother and that support measures be provided to the child and the family. The parents were not in agreement with the proposed plan as they wished to resume living together.

Consequently, the father requested a postponement as he wanted to be represented by a lawyer and that no lawyer was available to represent him that day for a contested hearing. The mother had also left the building before the case could be postponed. The Tribunal maintained the status quo in the interim. The case was postponed to April 25, 2017. [ 8 ] On April 25, 2017, the Director was prepared to recommend that the child be entrusted to the care of both parents and that support measures be ordered for a period of one year. The parents did not present themselves to Court.

The Director informed the Tribunal that a new signalement was received regarding the child’s situation. Consequently, the Director requested a postponement and the Tribunal agreed to that request. Immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was placed in the paternal grand-father’s care. [ 9 ] On May 9, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child, on a provisional basis, to the father’s care at the exclusion of the mother.

The Tribunal maintained support measures until the main hearing. [ 10 ] Following the evaluation of the April 25 signalement, the Director is now also alleging that a serious risk of physical abuse

exists. [ 11 ] On July 20, 2017, the Tribunal began the hearing. [ 12 ] The Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to the father’s care, at the exclusion of the mother, with a possible reintegration of the mother if approved by the Director, in conjunction with the implicated professionals treating the family. The Director wished to be authorized to share and receive relevant information regarding the child from the professionals involved and to receive information from the paternal grandfather.

The Director also recommended that other support measures be ordered for a duration of one year. [ 13 ] The parents wished to reunite as soon as possible. They were in agreement with the recommended measures but denied that a serious risk of physical abuse existed for the child. [ 14 ] The Tribunal heard Mrs. [social worker 1]’s testimony as well as the one of Mr. [social worker 2]. The mother started to testify. At the end of the day, as the parties agreed on one rationale of compromission, the Tribunal declared that the child’s security or development was compromised without specifying under which

article of the law. Question in litigation [ 15 ] As the parties agreed with the fact that child is seriously or repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of the parents that could cause him harm to the child, one question remains: Does the child run a serious risk of becoming the victim or bodily injury? Context and Analysis [ 16 ] In June 2016, the Director received a previous signalement due to allegations of conjugal violence, concerns regarding the parents’ mental health and the home environment. The file was closed, following evaluation, as the parents denied incidents of conjugal violence.

They also reported having support to deal with depression and that they were moving in a near future, which explained the unhygienic state of the apartment. [ 17 ] The mother was diagnosed with Major Depression and Personality Disorder in 2009. She reported that the unhygienic conditions of her home have been a chronic issues as she cared for cats in the past. She confirmed that conflicts with the father have resulted in verbal and physical aggression. She mentioned that the child had not witnessed this violence as he usually is in his bedroom when the altercations occur.

She seemed open to receive support regarding the dynamics of conjugal violence and the type of care that would be appropriate for the child. The mother reported to the youth protection worker that she made mistakes in the past, which includes leaving water and crackers in the child’s bed in case he gets hungry or thirsty. [ 18 ] The father acknowledged that the cleanliness of the home had been a chronic issue. The father is concerned about the recent deterioration of the mother’s mental health.

He acknowledged the incidents of verbal and physical altercations with the mother and admitted that the child should not hear these arguments between the parents. He reported not being concerned about the mother’s ability to care for the child. He experienced difficulty setting boundaries with the mother. [ 19 ] On December 7, 2016, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the father’s care, at the exclusion of the mother. [ 20 ] At first, the mother was refusing to meet with the youth protection worker. The only time they met was during a family meeting on January 18, 2016.

The mother blamed the youth protection worker for the family situation and refused to leave the residence. Police officers had to intervene. [ 21 ] The father has met with the youth protection worker on regular occasions. He receives, with the mother, support from numerous organisations (Recovery Support group, Couple’s counselling, telephone follow up from the Crisis Centre, family therapy at the Family Resource Centre). The father is on a waiting list to receive Mental Health services for anxiety and personal gains from the CSSS Pierrefonds.

This service is scheduled to start shortly. [ 22 ] The mother is followed by a social worker from MediStat Clinic. The mother also presented herself to the Lakeshore Hospital to undergo a mental health assessment. On March 1, 2017, she completed a psychiatric assessment. She was diagnosed with Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. It was recommended that she continues her psychotherapy follow up. The mother also took

part in a weekly Mom and Tots program through AMCAL. [ 23 ] Since the youth protection worker’s first visit to the apartment, the cleanliness of the home has been adequate. On January 4, 2017, the family moved to a new apartment. This is the family’s third home since the child’s birth. [ 24 ] The father’s criminal court hearing for fraud was postponed from January 11 to February 28 2017. On that date, the father was sentenced to house arrest for 18 months.

For the first 9 months, the father had to remain in his home at all time, except for activities approved by his community officer. [ 25 ] Both parents have criminal pending accusation: the father for uttering threats and breach of conditions and the mother for assault. [ 26 ] At the time, the contacts between the child and the mother were supervised by the paternal grandfather. [ 27 ] The parents started to address their mental health conditions and their relationship. They recognized their co-dependency on one another. They reported improvements in their communication and were committed to work on their issues.

They remained open to receive

the necessary help from different organisations. [ 28 ] On April 5, 2017, the police officers were called by the mother to intervene at the family’s apartment, as someone was shooting on the house with a pellet gun. The same individual also hit the mother with an object. During her testimony, the mother reported that the child was not present at the time, but this information is contradicted by the police report.

The Tribunal notes that the mother was present in the home, contrary to the January 30 court order. [ 29 ] On April 24 2017, the police officers had to intervene at the family’s residence following a verbal argument between the parents. As she was trying to leave the residence with the child in the car, the mother accidently hit the father with the car. The mother was present in the home, contrary to the January 30 court order.

When the police officers intervened, they observed that the apartment was in a chaotic and unhygienic state. [ 30 ] On April 25, 2017, as the youth protection worker tried to remove the child from the parents’ residence, the mother pushed her while she was holding the child. Immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was placed in the paternal grandfather’s care. The mother is accused of breach of condition. Again, the Tribunal notes that the mother was present in the home, contrary to the January 30 court order. [ 31 ] The father is clearly minimizing the gravity of the situation.

He does not recognize that the Court order was not respected or that the mother’s behaviour was inappropriate on April 24 and 25. [ 32 ] On May 9, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child, on a provisional basis, to the father’s care at the exclusion of the mother.

The Tribunal maintained support measures until the main hearing. [ 33 ] Following the placement, Mrs. [social worker 1] spoke to the mother and offered that visits happen either at the Frontenac office, at AMCAL services, at the grandfather or with someone else identified by the parents. [ 34 ] On May 25, 2017, the child had a contact with the mother at the maternal grandmother. This contact was not preapproved by the Director.

Further contacts with the mother were suspended until there is a written plan to clarify context and modalities of contacts. [ 35 ] On May 26, 2017, a new worker, Mr. [social worker 2], was assigned to the file to proceed with the evaluation of the new signalement. [ 36 ] On the same date, the child had an appointment with his pediatrician, the mother refused that Mrs. [social worker 1] come to the appointment.

This was the last authorized contact between the child and the mother. [ 37 ] Mr. [social worker 2] had the opportunity to observe that the father has a an affectionate relationship with the child and that the child is meeting his developmental milestones and appears in good overall health. [ 38 ] On June 20 2017 an educator started working with the family. The father has collaborated with the educator. [ 39 ] On July 10, 2017, the child started attending a private daycare. [ 40 ] Since Mr. [social worker 2]’s involvement, the mother has not avail herself.

Mr. [social worker 2] left voice messages, sent emails and tried to reach mother through Facebook. The father was in contact with the mother and mentioned that he could relay Mr. [social worker 2]’s messages to the mother.

The father let Mr. [social worker 2] know that she was in Ontario. [ 41 ] During her testimony, Mrs. [social worker 1] identified the parents’ goal for the next year as following: • The need for the parents to address their personal issues; • The mother needs to be involved in psychotherapy to address her mental health issues; • The father can pursue individual counselling at the CLSC, group counseling or at McGill Domestic Violence Program; • The family could eventually participate in couple counseling and learn about effective communication; • The family needs to collaborate with the social follow-up and educator services; • The need to observe how the mother parents the child. [ 42 ] The Director wishes to receive some information from the child’s daycare (attendance, concerns, developmental feedback). [ 43 ] At this point, the father is not participating in any supporting services.

He is collaborating with the Director but is not always transparent. [ 44 ] At one point, the father has considered leaving the province with the child in order for the Director to close the file. [ 45 ] On August 31, 2017, the mother accompanied the child and the father to a medical appointment at St. Justine Hospital contrary to the Court order. The child was assessed for Autism but no concerns were noted. [ 46 ] The paternal grandfather, Mr.

C, reported that the visits between the mother and the child were appropriate. [ 47 ] The mother has continued to refuse to speak or meet with the youth protection worker or educator. [ 48 ] On October 19, 2017, a letter was left at the mother’s apartment informing her that visits with her child were no longer to

happen at the grandfather’s residence. The mother was asked to contact the worker to arrange for visits. The mother has not contacted the youth protection worker since. [ 49 ] When in the father’s presence, the mother has not been able to regulate her emotions appropriately. On April 24, 2017, following an argument with the father, she had a car accident, while the child was in the car. She has not addressed her mental health issues and has refused to collaborate with the Director.

This leads the Tribunal to conclude that the Director presented a preponderant proof to the effect that the child runs a serious risk of becoming the victim or bodily injury by his mother. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 50 ] GRANTS the application; [ 51 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (sections 38 o b) 2 o ,

c) and e) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 52 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his father at the exclusion of his mother until such time that the professionals involved in consultation with the Director deem it safe for her to return home; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to physical and/or verbal violence; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate and engage with an educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the mother collaborate with the interventions of the Director of Youth Protection and meet with the worker when requested; [ 57 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents engage with their respective support services to address the concerns regarding mental health and issues of conjugal violence and follow the recommendations being made; [ 58 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in therapy to address her anger management; [ 59 ] AUTHORIZE the Director to exchange information with the professionals involved with the parents for the purpose of attendance and progress; [ 60 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain relevant information regarding the child from the professionals involved and with the paternal grandfather; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 62 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 63 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Signed on November 28, 2017 /cd Mtre Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Karine Leclerc Counsel for the child Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: July 20 and November 22, 2017