2018 QCCQ 15368, 2018 QCCQ 15368

Protection de la jeunesse — 185976 2018 QCCQ 15368 COURT OF QUEBEC “Youth Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] No.: 525-41-021740-089 DATE: March 20, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE PATRICE HURTUBISE ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X (born on [...], 2005) - and - Director of Youth Protection of A IUHSSC Applicant - and - A B Parents - respondents JUDGMENT [1] (Section 95 Y.P.A.) [ 1 ] JH5272 The Court has before it an application to extend an order rendered by the undersigned on May 16, 2016. [ 2 ] The Director recommends that X remain placed with her current foster family until she reaches the age of majority.

The parents contest this. X’s situation [ 3 ] X’s integration into her foster family has been difficult. Although she previously managed to function well in her group home, it appears that the emotional burden of moving in with a foster family has had significant consequences. [ 4 ] X is torn. Her loyalty lies with her parents. If she functions well in her foster environment, she will not be able to return to live with her family.

Her dynamic and her needs must be understood through this distorted prism. [ 5 ] During her testimony, X complained that her foster parents have excessive and unfair expectations of her. Upon analysis, however, it is clear that these expectations are not unreasonable. For example, she has a bedtime and must make her bed, take a shower, and eat the food prepared for her. [ 6 ] Fortunately, thanks to the foster mother’s special attention and the educator’s support, significant progress has been made over the past few months. [ 7 ] Moreover, X and her foster mother have developed a comforting bond.

There is reciprocal attachment. In fact, the child “apologizes” for choosing her parents. She is well aware that she is now living in an environment where it will be possible for her to reach her full potential provided that her situation is clarified. [ 8 ] Everything indicates that once the issue of returning to live with her parents is settled, X will be able to relinquish the stifling anxiety paralyzing her. The parents’ situation [ 9 ] The parents’ situation has improved slightly. Since November 2017, the mother has resumed receiving the services of an educator from the A Readaptation Centre (CR[A]).

The organization also offered the support of a social worker to the mother, but she declined. [ 10 ] The father says his mental health has improved. He has not been receiving help from the CLSC for the past year. [ 11 ] As usual, the parents request X’s return and say they are open to receiving help from the Director. It should also be noted that the

parents have maintained a respectful relationship with the foster family. [ 12 ] To support their position, the parents underwent two assessments. [ 13 ] Psychologist Sabrina Rangel noted that they have actual parenting skills. They need specialized support, in particular from the CR[A]. They are able to provide for X’s basic needs. The psychologist recommends a gradual increase in contact over the next six months and a subsequent assessment of whether it will eventually be possible for the child to return to live with her parents. [ 14 ] Social worker [social worker 1] is of the view that X needs a clear plan.

She also suggests increasing contact to realistically assess whether it is possible for the child to return to live in her natural environment. [ 15 ] However, these cautiously optimistic remarks are tempered by recurring conjugal conflicts, the poor state of the family residence (vermin), and the devastating comments made by Mr. B in front of X (incidents of incest in the mother’s family), which had direct consequences on the child’s emotional state, particularly at school. [ 16 ] The parents claim that their residence is no longer infested by bedbugs.

In September, however, upon her return from a weekend visit, X did not remove her clothing when she arrived at the foster home, which consequently became infested in turn. [ 17 ] In this regard, the mother said that X might have been carrying bedbugs because her neighbours are infested. She admitted, however, that she still sees bedbugs in her home “from time to time”. Discussion [ 18 ] The B family is well known to the undersigned. The last hearing was the parents’ 49th appearance before the Court. It is not possible to make an assessment solely on the basis of their situation in February 2018.

It is absolutely necessary to take their long history into account. [ 19 ] It is thus necessary to reiterate the previous observations: [2] [4] To assess the developments in the parents’ situation, it is appropriate to recall certain observations appearing in previous orders: March 27, 2009 judgmen t [12] … The mother was found to have a very weak profile and a mild intellectual impairment. Hence, her functioning is limited and she must be constantly supervised . Although her emotional bond with her children is valid, Ms.

A seems unable to understand their reactions and meet their needs without assistance. . . . [14] The father’s personality is marked by aggressiveness and he probably has an untreated attention deficit disorder. He needs to be in control and strongly resists all change . November 4, 2010 judgment [10] Ms. A is now receiving support from an educator with the Centre de réadaptation A (CR[A]) and from a CLSC worker.

With concrete help, she is managing to improve her capacities and more adequately stimulate the children. [11] At the time of the hearing, she was receiving more than 10 hours of specialized services per week. Her efforts and determination are remarkable, but, at the same time, indicative of her huge need for support . . . . [19] With the help of the CR[A] educator, the mother seems to understand the importance of her role.

She is putting into practice the means proposed, including the constant stimulation her daughter needs. … [21] So, with a great deal of support , the child can continue to live with her parents.

November 14, 2012 judgment [6] Overall, the parents adequately assume their parental responsibilities, as they accept the significant number of services they receive (CLSC, CR[A] and DYP) . [7] After much hesitation, the father finally agreed to work on his cannabis problem. He has completed a program at Foster Pavilion and is now taking

part in follow-up with the CLSC A. [8] As for the mother, she still cooperates with all the caseworkers. However, it was regularly noted that, should she be left to her own devices, she would be unable to assume responsibility for her children . [9] Essentially, the Director recommended that the current measures be continued for the coming year. However, everything indicates that the services will be necessary in the long term.

Although there is reason to be optimistic about the parents’ ability to assume responsibility for their two youngest children, expecting them to do so without specialized assistance would be unrealistic . (Emphasis added.) [8] The spousal relationship is marked by conflicts. The latest separation dates from less than a month ago. The financial problems remain. [9] A number of assistance services have been interrupted because the family home is infested with bedbugs. This situation has lasted more than six months.

To date, the parents have not notified their landlord or hired an exterminator. [ 20 ] In this context, the parents’ progress appears fragile. Their difficulties (financial, relational and organizational) are recurrent. [ 21 ] It should also be recalled that X has been placed since May 2013 and has not returned to the family home since that time. The maximum placement period set out in

section 91.1 has clearly been reached.

Section 91.1 If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 22 ] This is not a situation described in the fourth paragraph. Everything indicates that X would benefit from a clear and permanent order. Although her integration has been difficult, it has progressed in a positive manner. She is well supported and her emotional needs are being met.

Moreover, the foster family exhibits an exemplary openness towards the parents.

[ 23 ] As for the parents’ proposal, as formulated by their experts, it presupposes an increase in contact followed by a re-assessment of the situation to determine whether X’s return is possible. All that, after five years of placement. [ 24 ] We can no longer try and see. Reintegration is not possible in the short term. Permanency is necessary. [ 25 ] X’s placement in her foster family until she reaches the age of majority is justified. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] FINDS that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 27 ] concluDES that the placement periods set out in

section 91.1 YPA have expired and that the child’s return to her natural environment is not possible in the short term; CONSEQUENTLY : [ 28 ] MAKES an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis; [ 29 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that to that end, the Director of Youth Protection has chosen the foster family of C; [ 30 ] ORDERS X’s placement in the foster family of C; [ 31 ] ORDERS that contacts between X and her parents take place following modalities to be established by the Director at a frequency to be agreed upon between the parties; [ 32 ] FAILING AN AGREEMENT, the frequency will be once a week for a minimum of 3 consecutive hours; [ 33 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to X and her parents; [ 34 ] THE WHOLE until X ’s age of majority .

Signed in Town A on May 14, 2018. ___________________________________ PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the DYP Me Anna Colarusso Counsel for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the father

Hearing dates: March 28, 2017, September 5, 2017, February 27, 2018, March 20, 2018 [1] WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A. ).