2017 QCCQ 17652, 2017 QCCQ 17652

Protection de la jeunesse — 178175 2017 QCCQ 17652 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032263-170 DATE : October 12, 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) and order of interim measures ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 12, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the mother is not providing the child with the appropriate supervision or support and that the child is subjected to psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that a decision on the situation of compromis-sion be rendered and that hearing on the applicable measures be continued to another date in approximately six months.

In the meantime, the Director recommends that the child remains entrusted to the care of her father and that support measures be ordered. [ 4 ] The mother admits the situation of compromission and states that the content of the reports is generally accurate. She is in agreement with the proposed plan. [ 5 ] The father recognizes the situation of compromission and is also in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 6 ] The child’s lawyer is also in agreement with the proposed plan. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The parents are separated and share the child’s custody. [ 9 ] The mother has a history of alcohol and drug use.

[ 10 ] On January 20, 2017, Mr. C called the police as D contacted him and seemed in distress after returning home from school with his mother. D mentioned that she was throwing objects in the house. The police report that during their intervention, the mother acted in an erratic way and that her breath was smelling of alcohol.

At the time, the mother reported that she was just emotional and denied being erratic or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. [ 11 ] D reported being scared that his mother would hurt him, that she will have people over at her home who will bring pills and roll cigarettes and that she often yells at him. [ 12 ] Mr. C and Mr. B are of the opinion that the mother still struggle with drug and alcohol consumption. [ 13 ] They report that she does not provide an appropriate routine for their respective child. Mr.

B states that the mother often lets X wear dirty diapers and does not provide an appropriate sleep routine. Mr. C reports that D is often late at school as the mother does not wake him up on time. [ 14 ] Considering the parties’ positions and the psychological evaluation done regarding D, the Tribunal dispensed him from testifying. [ 15 ] In February 2017, D reported to the youth protection worker that his mother yells at him on a regular basis. It bothered him that his mother is rude to his father and his sister’s father. It also upsets him when his mother asks him questions about his time with his father.

D reported that he often has to wake his mother up in the morning, which makes him late for school. He is concerned about his mother’s drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. He also worries when his mother’s friends bring pills in the home. He states that his sister cries because she has dirty diapers on and that the mother has dropped her.

D reported two events where his mother used physical force to discipline him: one incident when she bent his fingers back and another incident when she dropped him on the floor. [ 16 ] During her meeting with the youth protection worker, the mother reported that she had a history of consuming marijuana, cocaine and alcohol. She reported that she had stopped consuming drugs since the Superior Court’s involvement. She stated that she went to the Douglas Hospital the previous week and was prescribed sleeping pills has she had been under a lot of stress. She was attending Edgewood, an outpatient rehab twice per week.

She’s described by the group facilitator as an active group participant and motivated to address her substance abuse issues. She reported that on January 20, 2017, she noticed that D was distant from her and believed that Mr. C was alienating D from her.

The mother remembered a situation when she may have grabbed D roughly to prevent him from waking up his sister. [ 17 ] As the reported situations of physical interventions with D appear to be isolated, the Tribunal will declare that a serious risk of physical abuse exists. [ 18 ] On February 16, 2017, the parties signed a provisional agreement to the effect that the mother would not have friends over nor consume drugs or alcohol when the child would be in her care. Other support measures were also part of that agreement. [ 19 ] On February 21, 2017, Mr.

C reported that the mother had called him and sounded heavily intoxicated. [ 20 ] On February 24, 2017, the youth protection worker received results from a hair test analysis done on the mother on February 16, 2017.

She tested positive for cocaine and ecstasy. [ 21 ] On February 27, 2017, the mother refused to participate in a drug test. [ 22 ] On February 28, 2017, D reported to the youth protection worker that, contrary to the provisional agreement, the mother had a friend over at home when he was under her care. [ 23 ] On March 7, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the children to their respective father on a provisional basis.

Contacts between the children and the mother were encouraged but organized by the Director at least once per week. [ 24 ] On or around March 11, 2017, the mother was admitted to St-Luc Hospital seriously intoxicated (D-5). She reported having consumed cocaine and alcohol. She was wishing to take

part in a drug treatment program. [ 25 ] From March 24 to April 14, 2017, the mother participated in an inpatient treatment program at Maison Jean-Lapointe. [ 26 ] On April 18 and 26, 2017, the mother refused to go to a random drug and alcohol test. [ 27 ] The mother participated in a rehabilitation treatment program at Chatsworth. [ 28 ] On May 1, 2017, the Tribunal suspended the contacts between the mother and the child until May 31, 2017.

On that date, the Tribunal ordered that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director. [ 29 ] On June 6, 2017, the child had her first supervised visit with the mother since she returned from rehab. A

schedule was established to permit weekly hour visits between the mother and the child. The service of an educator was provided to support the mother in managing D’s anxiety during the visit. On several occasions, the mother arrived late to the visits. Some visits were cancelled by the mother. D expressed feeling more comfortable during his visits with his mother since they were supervised. [ 30 ] On June 13 and July 4, 10, 11, 13 and 17, 2017, the mother refused to take a drug test.

The mother agreed to go for a drug test on July 31, 2017, however she did not go. [ 31 ] On August 11, 2017, the police had to intervene in relation to a conjugal violence incident involving the mother. She reported that she had spent the night with E and that they consumed lots of alcohol and cocaine. Following a dispute, Mr. E took her by the arm and pushed her outside of the home. During this incident, the child was in the father’s care.

[ 32 ] On August 29, 2017, Mr. B reported that the mother called him saying that she had been beaten by her partner again. [ 33 ] This new relationship impacts negatively on the mother’s stability and capacity to care for the child. [ 34 ] On September 5, 2017, the mother tested negative to the random drug test administered. She admitted having a new partner but denied the extent of the violence reported. [ 35 ] The mother has not had a stable phone number or address throughout the orientation phase of the youth protection process. [ 36 ] Following the last preparatory conference on September 19, 2017, Mr.

C reported that members of the mother’s family told him that she threatened to kill him, Mr. B and herself. [ 37 ] On September 26, 2017, the mother sounded intoxicated and in emotional distress. She stated needing to go to the hospital as she did not feel stable and she needed detox. The youth protection worker arranged for her to be taken by ambulance to the hospital. The mother reported that she continues to consume drugs. [ 38 ] Dr. Catherine Cloutier, psychologist, evaluated the parenting capacity of Mr. B. Dr. Cloutier concluded with the following: Mr.

B shows to have good parenting capacity regarding his response to X’s physical, material, physical security, stability and learning needs. (…) X’s parents are set into a very acrimonious post-separation relationship, highlighted by frequent Court undertakings to resolve their disputes. [1] [ 39 ] Dr. Cloutier recommends that the Director remains involved in this situation as it is high-risk for alienation. [ 40 ] Dr. Cloutier also evaluated the parental capacity of Mr. C, but due to an administrative error, the Director has not yet file this document. [ 41 ] Carolyn Klein, psychologist evaluated D.

She concluded to the following: D appears to have polarizing thoughts about his parents, and this is of concern for his emotional development. Specifically, his all or nothing attitude suggests that he may have difficulty forming meaningful relationships with peers and adults, as any shortcoming will cause much cognitive dissonance. It is unclear whether Ms. A has harmed or traumatized D to the extent that his attitude would be warranted. It may be that the combination of his mother having disappointed him and failed to meet his basic needs and his father sharing his concerns with D have led to his polarization.

D is well aware of the custody battle, and of the fact that his father does not trust his mother. He is aware that his father records their phone conversations, and knows that he was given a phone to use to protect him from his mother. These actions may have increased the polarity of D’s feelings. [2] [ 42 ] At this point, the Tribunal considers that it is necessary to render an interim decision. The family’s objectives are clear. The parents need to work on presenting a united front for the child.

The mother needs to work on her addictions issues, to stabilize her home environment and to work on her communications with the father. Contacts between the siblings need to be maintained. Contacts between the mother and the child need to be stabilized. The father needs to continue to provide support for the child in a neutral/not-alienating way. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the application; [ 44 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of X is endangered ( sections 38 b) 1 o iii and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 45 ] SETS the continuation of the hearing on April 9, 2018, in room 2.06 in front of the undersigned for a duration of half-a-day; [ 46 ] CANCELS the hearing dates of October 13, 30 and 31, 2017; [ 47 ] In the meantime: [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of her father; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and exchange pertinent information with all professionals involved with the family pertaining to attendance and progress; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents do not denigrate each other in the presence of the child; [ 51 ] ORDERS that frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision if necessary; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submit to random drug testing; [ 53 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother address her drug and alcohol issues; [ 54 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother take the steps to receive a psychiatric assessment;

[ 55 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection that a psychiatric assessment be done for the mother when it is the time to do so; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 57 ] 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 October 17, 2017 /cd Mtre Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Lilian Stah Counsel for the child Mtre Marie-Chantale Dufour-Maltais Counsel for the father Date of hearing: October 12, 2017