2020 QCCQ 10864, 2020 QCCQ 10864

Protection de la jeunesse — 207752 2020 QCCQ 10864 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000464-181 DATE: December 4, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2018 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 August 6, 2019, in respect of the child in order to entrust him to a foster family until his majority. His older sister is already entrusted until majority in another foster family. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and duly represented by their lawyer. They dispute the conclusions sought and request that the child be entrusted to them.

Regarding the child, he is represented by a lawyer acting under a legal mandate, considering his young age. [ 3 ] In the last measure ordered, the child is entrusted in a foster family, and many other measures were put in place to support the parents and provide them with services. Following that, several objectives have been implemented to help the child as well as the parents. ANALYSIS & DECISION • Parents [ 4 ] The parents do not realize their own responsibilities in the situation of endangerment and why the DYP is involved in their lives. They do not comprehend the seriousness of the supervised visits.

Instead of, appreciating the contact with the child, they wish to visit other family members or call people. [ 5 ] No doubt that these parents love their son and show affection to him, which is also reciprocal. Nevertheless, they do not seem to understand the magnitude of the situation and their

part in it. The collaboration of the parents is mitigated at times. Since the beginning of the intervention of the DYP, they are unable to explain the reasons of their presence nor do they recognize any responsibilities in it. [ 6 ] The parents take time to sign necessary documents for the child’s medical needs. The latter had to undergo a surgery; it took them three weeks to sign the authorization, delaying the intervention. It must be said that the father does not trust professionals, including some doctors.

They argue that the child needs medical attention, but they refuse to give access to his medical file to the DYP. The father accuses the DYP to undermine him regarding medical advice or information received. Still, the parents are encouraged to attend the

child’s medical appointment to ask themselves, questions to the doctor, or they could call, but they do not. [ 7 ] The parents’ situation fluctuates over time. During some periods, they collaborate, make an effort to follow the advice of the professionals involved with them, and improvements are observed. However, as soon as something displeases the parents, especially the father, the situation quickly regresses. All the positive gains developed over time vanishes.

As soon as, he disapproves of a DYP’s decision, they become verbally aggressive in an intensive way. [ 8 ] The parents are very suspicious of persons around them. Sometimes, it happens that supervised visits were canceled notably due to a lack of staff, activities with the foster family or the weather. When announcing to the parents, every time, the father mostly is furious and reacts aggressively towards the youth delegate. He becomes very disrespectful and insults the DYP. The parents do not show any collaboration or understanding of any kind, even if this is due to the bad temperature.

Of course, we can understand the father’s dissatisfaction, but it is his way of speaking and reacting, that is unacceptable. [ 9 ] The parents are impatient regarding the measures put in place. They always ask for more such as additional contacts, unsupervised contacts or that the supervised visits be at their home. They are able to supervise their son but not to stimulate him adequately.

They do not interact a lot with the child nor play enough with him. [ 10 ] Prior to August 2019, the supervised visits with the child had to be interrupted because the father was disrespectful with the youth delegate and spoke negatively on the child’s presence. A meeting was held to discuss about the non-violence policy, and visits can continue. [ 11 ] Over time, considering the efforts of the parents in terms of the cleanliness of their residence and the improvements observed, in the beginning of 2020, the supervised visits took place at their home.

These visits are going well, and the parents are very appropriate to the child. They are able to provide a safe and secure environment as well as adequate meals and proper clothing. They have all the necessary things for the child. Unfortunately, visits are suddenly interrupted due to the rampant Covid-19 pandemic, and contacts through technological means are set up. A few weeks later the physical visits started again. [ 12 ] The problem with the parents is whether they are able to maintain their gains in the long term.

To do this, unsupervised visits are instituted as well as increased demands on the daily routine. Unfortunately the parents were not able to maintain it. Gradually, the quality of the meals deteriorates and the child still seems to be hungry when he returns from the visit. In addition, he has nightmares. The parents do not stimulate the child enough and do not recognize his needs. On occasion, they argue in front of him. Without the presence of DYP in their lives, the situation would be worrying. [ 13 ] The parents lack of transparency with the DYP.

The latter was informed that the mother is pregnant again, but she persists to deny it until she admitted it later. The parents state that they will do everything in their power to ensure that DYP does not take their unborn child. They consider giving it to a family member in the community A. [ 14 ] Since May 2020, their collaboration with the DYP deteriorates. They use a disrespectful language, bullying, and verbal aggression against the professionals to express themselves. Such behaviour cannot be bounded. Nobody deserves to endure this treatment.

The parents need to communicate more adequately with the persons surrounding them. This is not a good example for the child who could witness it as well. Of course, at the beginning of the supervised visits, they can provide a safe and secure environment as well as appropriate meals for short periods while being supervised. [ 15 ] Once again, on August 27, 2020, just like in August 2019, visits to the child is suspended, considering the inadequacy of the parent's comments. They say aggressive and threatening words to the worker in the presence of the child.

Their interventions are inappropriate, and they talk to the child improperly. In addition, they argue in front of him. [ 16 ] During one supervised visits, the father intimidates the contact supervisor and makes open threats about social workers. The mother speaks to her aggressively as well, and she does not feel welcome there. At this point, a register letter was sent to meet both parents at the office to clarify this recurrent situation. The parents refuse to go, on the pretext that it is a trap. Subsequently, they point out that they did not show up due to a transport problem.

On September 16, 2020, the DYP asks the father if he is willing to come to the office to

schedule the next visits to his child, but he declines. From this point on, he wants to continue through the A community. Since the end of August, the parents have not seen the child. • Father [ 17 ] The father is inclined to anger rapidly and does not trust the DYP, the youth delegate as well and many other professionals. Even the Court had a demonstration of his aggressiveness and disrespectful behaviour. Nothing seems to make him calm down. It is obvious, when things do not go his way, the father loses easily his temper. When he testifies, he denigrates the professionals involved with his family.

Once again, he holds the same usual discourse it’s everyone’s fault except his own. In fact, this only demonstrates and corroborates several aspects observed by the professionals in respect with the father’s attitude. [ 18 ] He has many personal issues to deal with but does not do anything about it. The father alleges that he recently had a follow-up with [Center A]. However, the reality is quite different. In fact, the DYP files a letter dated November 5, 2020, from the worker of [Center A], which underlines that his last meeting with the father dates back to March 2016. In doing so, he obviously not honest.

When confronted with this document, he accuses the worker of lying. He says he benefits from further follow-ups notably with Ms. C, but he is unable to provide documentation of any kind or concerning any other meetings. [ 19 ] The father is not attending school when asked if he was kicked out because of his behaviour he denies it, once again a letter from the centre coordinator is files, showing that he was asked to stop attending classes due to his aggressive behaviour toward the teacher.

He can to come back in the next group, if he deals with his personal issues. [ 20 ] As previously mentioned, in another judgment rendered regarding the child’s sister, his psychological assessment underlines that he tends to negative expectations, distrust, and need of control, immaturity as well as his propensity to aggressiveness. Because of

these issues, he deprives himself of the services he needs. When these aspects are mentioned to the father, he gets frustrated, insults the DYP and stops collaborating [1] . Clearly, that the situation has not improved since that judgment. • Mother [ 21 ] The mother as well as the father is prone to anger promptly and tends to jump to the conclusion. Despite, she seems more able to control herself and keeps her cool, at least in court. [ 22 ] At the beginning of supervised visits, the mother pays little attention to the child because she does other things, but gradually she made some improvements.

Now, she is more present, affectionate and well prepared. • Child [ 23 ] Today, the father expresses his wish for his child to be entrusted to a family within his community A. It is, the first time that he ever made such a request either to the Court or to the youth delegate. Himself, has not lived there for several years. He has been residing in the Town A area with his wife. This request is somewhat surprising as this placement would mean that the child would no longer be near the parents, which will certainly have an impact as the parents do not have a vehicle.

Frequently, a transport service has to be arranged for them. Essentially, they do not take the appropriate measures regarding transportation to be present when needed to take care of their parental responsibilities. Therefore, this request is not in the child best interest. [ 24 ] As for the child, he is entrusted in the same family since May 2019. He continues to improve in all spheres in this stable and secure environment. This family respond to all his needs. Besides, they are available and flexible concerning the child’s requirements and appointments.

Before being entrusted to this family, the child suffers from nutritional deficiency and was underweight. However, with a regular follow-up, he gained some weight. Through time, the parents as well were more adequate to provide balanced meals and snacks. [ 25 ] The relationship between the parents and the foster family is acrimonious. The latter accuse the family of spreading gossip about them, which they deny. A formal notice had to be sent to the parents in order for them to stop filming the foster family and their surroundings.

The parents were supposed to pick up the child at the foster family’s house but because of an argument between them, the foster family was not comfortable with the idea of the parents at their home. Once again, the DYP had to assume transportation under the circumstances. The parents do not trust this family like many other persons around them. They allege that the latter mistreats their child. However, these allegations were verified and nothing was founded. [ 26 ] Despite all this, the foster family is willing to take care of the child until his majority.

The foster mother also agrees for the child to participate in activities to preserve his cultural heritage. CONCLUSION [ 27 ] This issue here, it is not just the aggressive behaviour of the parents towards professionals but all the situation. The parents’ overall picture is far from positive. For months, the DYP has been trying to intervene with the parents and provides them with help and support, which most of the time they do not accept. Obviously, the changes are ephemeral and nothing really evolved in the situation of these parents.

Their efforts are short-lived, and verbal abuse is often at the forefront in their communication among the professionals involved or others who revolve around them. [ 28 ] Furthermore, the Court wishes to highlight certain paragraphs of the judgment render regarding the child’s sister, about the family situation at the time, as hereby reproduced: “ [27] The psychological assessment also points out that the father has some parental capacities, but since he does not recognize the need to improve in certain spheres of his life and to work in a team with the professionals involved, this affects his capacities.

As far as the mother is concerned, she has considerable limitations regarding her intellectual abilities. Managing multiple responsibilities all at once becomes mentally too difficult for her. She can provide for her children’s basic needs when it is already learned. When an unexpected situation arises, or she has several things to manage at the same time, she has more trouble to deal with them [2] . » [ 29 ] It is hard to intervene and work with the parents, even more with the father. Their collaboration fluctuated in time.

Evidently, the situation is identical to that reported in this judgment rendered over a year ago. Nothing changes and it is the same story repeating itself over and over again. [ 30 ] Clearly, the parents are not putting their priority in the right place. Indeed, they prefer to be deprived of contact with their child rather than participate in a prior meeting with the DYP before resuming contact. This behaviour is, after all, questionable and in no way favours the best interest of the child. They delay the signing of medical documents or deny access to them, without valid reason.

As mention in the psychosocial report [3] , the parents remain unable to receive advice and be proactive nor seek help for their personal issues. They have limited parental skills that do not allow long unsupervised visits. [ 31 ] The Court has no doubt that the parents deeply love their child and take care of him properly during the visits. It is not contradicted that they are able to do it for a short period of time. The problem lies rather in the long-term period since the parental capacities are insufficient. They also demonstrate behavioural problems against almost everyone.

This persists over time and seemingly they make no effort to improve. [ 32 ] The maximum placement period has been reached in this case, and nothing in the evidence allows for a derogation from it. Now, a life plan must be set up for this child. After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence, we can conclude that the parent’s environment is still inappropriate for the child.

During the last measure ordered, some positive changes were observed, but it did not last. [ 33 ] Considering the evidence adduces the Court finds that the security and the development of the child is still in danger according

to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act. Consequently, the application is well founded. Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP appear to be in the child’s best interest. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 34 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 36 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on August 6, 2019, in the present file; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family designated by the DYP and that this foster family is the one of Mrs. D and Mr.

E, until his majority, on [...], 2036; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents take place fallowing and an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 39 ] AUTHORIZES the professionals working with the child to communicate the information with each other concerning the child; [ 40 ] REMOVES from the parents, the exercise of parental authorities over medical authorizations, school authorizations, social and other authorizations including attainment of a driver’s licence, passport application and authorize the DYP or the foster family to sign them; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child receives specific health care and health services, such as an audiologist, speech therapist, and occupational therapist; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents avoid exposing the child to any kind of violence; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random drug screening tests; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue their follow-ups regarding their personal issues; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively to the application of the ordered measures; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until [...], 2036; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parties covered by this order to comply. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Bruno Vargas for the parents Date of hearing: October 5, 2020