2023 QCCQ 7511, 2023 QCCQ 7511

Protection de la jeunesse — 233804 2023 QCCQ 7511 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N o : 455-41-001258-201 DATE: April 21 st , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2019 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- UNDECLARED FATHER Child’s father -and- A Child’s mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting for the revision of the Court order rendered on December 9, 2021. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the child still in danger for the motive of serious risk of neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court maintained the child entrusted to Mrs. B, authorized contacts with his mother, supervised by a third party designated by the Director, she took judicial notice that the mother’s spouse, Mr.

C, would be allowed to be present during the contacts upon agreement with the Director and ordered various other measures including a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the child are still in danger for the same motives. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrust the child to the kinship foster family, of Mrs.

B, authorize, supervised contact with the mother, by a third party determined by the Director, upon agreement between the parties, authorize the lifting of the supervision if the situation allows, withdraw from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, and entrust their exercise to Mrs. B. [ 6 ] The Director also makes different other recommendations including a social follow-up until the child’s age of majority, on [...], 2037. [ 7 ] At the hearing on April 21 st , 2023, the mother is present and not represented.

She doesn’t want the child to be placed, she wants him to be at home with his family and his sister. If the child remains in care, she wants more contact with him and that her partner, Mr. C be authorized to be present at her contact.

[ 8 ] The child’s lawyer generally agrees with the Director’s recommendations. [ 9 ] As for the contacts with the mother, since the evidence shows that they are positive for the child, their frequency and modality should not be left to the Director to decide. She emphasizes that it is important to maintain the bond between mother and child. Consequently, she recommends that contact be ordered at least once every two weeks. [ 10 ] Since there is no evidence to support the removal of the exercise of parental authority exception of health care, she believes that the order should be thus narrowed. [ 11 ] As for Mr.

C, she believes it is not in the child’s best interest to have contacts with him. Question in litigation [ 12 ] Is a return to the mother’s home in the child’s best interest? [ 13 ] In the negative, should the child be entrusted to the foster home of Ms. B until his majority? [ 14 ] What should be the frequency and modality of contact with his mother? [ 15 ] Should the mother’s spouse, Mr. C be allowed to visit the child? [ 16 ] What should be the scope of the order regarding the withdrawal of parental authority?

Evolution of the situation [ 17 ] Since the last court order, X has continued to live with his maternal great-aunt, Mrs. B, and her husband, Mr. D. [ 18 ] He attends daycare and is developing well according to his age except for a slight delay in speech development. [ 19 ] On January 18 th , 2023, the child began attending preschool one morning a week to prepare for school the following fall. [ 20 ] The child has evolved positively and has developed a secure bond with Mrs. B and Mr. D. [ 21 ] Nevertheless, the mother is quick to accuse Mrs.

B of not taking good care of the child as soon as X catches a cold or develops a diaper rash. [ 22 ] The mother is reluctant to sign any authorizations for the child, even if she has previously verbally agreed. [ 23 ] Thus, in May 2022, the child’s ear surgery was canceled because the mother failed to sign the authorization in time. She had undertaken to present herself at the hospital to do so but did not show up.

Nevertheless, the child was able to receive the operation later. [ 24 ] It was noted that his language improved after this intervention. [ 25 ] She had also agreed for the COVID-19 vaccination but refused to sign the written authorization. [ 26 ] On October 26 th , 2022, she changed her mind regarding her son’s flu shot. [ 27 ] As for other aspects of parental authority, the mother refused to consent to the child traveling outside the province in the context where the foster family was planning to maybe live in Ontario. [ 28 ] The child benefits from weekly supervised visits with his mother for a duration of two hours.

She has been generally assiduous to these contacts. When she cancels it is usually due to health problems or lack of transportation. [ 29 ] X is always happy to see his mother but often tries to leave the room early in the visit.

The mother had to be taught to interact with the child right away to capture his attention. [ 30 ] In fact, it is observed that the mother still needs coaching and tips on how to respond to the child’s basic needs (cleanliness of the child during a diaper change, temperature or size of the food given to the child, structured snack time, etc…). [ 31 ] Some interventions are also still required to ensure the safety of the child. When the mother is tired her vigilance is lacking. [ 32 ] The mother has improved in her interactions with the child as she no longer plays alongside but with X.

She brings books and provides for some stimulation. [ 33 ] She has shown some learning after coaching as she benefits from her experience with her daughter. But she needs a lot of repetition and coaching. [ 34 ] The mother’s spouse, Mr. C, participated to only four contacts although he had the option of more. The first contact was on January 17 th , 2022. It went well until Mr. C tried to examine the child’s abdomen. X then reacted as showed he was uncomfortable. The second visit on April 2 nd went without any incident. [ 35 ] On the third visit, May 2 nd , his younger half-sister was present.

X witnessed an exchange between the mother and her spouse during a diaper change when the first allowed the second to complete the change because the mother was having difficulty with the baby. After this visit, X had some negative reactions for the following two days.

[ 36 ] On October 12 th , 2022, the family celebrated the child’s birthday. X was jealous when his sister was near his mother. When the mother was told that X was eating popcorn that had fallen on the floor, she picked it up, put it in a plate and gave it to the child. [ 37 ] There were a few visits when the mother seemed tired. [ 38 ] The Director mentioned his intention to diminish or reduce the frequency of visits to once every two weeks, supervised by the Director, and to add visits at the foster home because the mother and Ms.

B are now getting along better. [ 39 ] As for her personal evolution, the mother is still living with Mr. C and their child. They have to leave the house they live in which has been sold and are experiencing some difficulty in finding a new home. [ 40 ] They are also having difficulty with Mr. C’s roommate who is out of jail and on probation. The man is a known sex offender.

The couple has repeatedly asked him to leave because he is disrupting their family life. [ 41 ] She did not register for parenting classes in March 2022, despite her plan to do so. [ 42 ] She also did not follow up on services to learn about the dynamics of conjugal violence. [ 43 ] She refused to participate in a psychological evaluation to assess her cognitive capability. Mr. C advised her not to “incriminate herself”. [ 44 ] As to her collaboration with social services, it is mitigated. Aside from the health consents not provided, she seems influenced by Mr.

C when disagreeing with a decision regarding her son. [ 45 ] During some phone conversations, the delegate can hear Mr. C in the background being verbally abusive towards her. At another time, he left an angry message to delegate about her report. [ 46 ] The delegate noticed a difference in her attitude when she was in the company of her spouse as she became more compliant and impatient. [ 47 ] The delegate explained to her that communicating with her is difficult when her spouse takes too much space.

The mother acknowledged without any comment. [ 48 ] She says she is the one who takes care of their daughter, most of the time, while her spouse runs errands or is out trapping and hunting. She is adamant that she is supported by her spouse when she needs him and that they still have each other’s back. analysis [ 49 ] The Court is seized with a petition for a revision in the situation of X.

The evidence shows that his security and the development are still in danger on the ground of serious risk of neglect. [ 50 ] The mother was not able to take and apply measures to put an end to this situation. [ 51 ] In fact, her situation has not evolved, and interventions are still made during the supervised contacts for her to meet the child’s basic needs. [ 52 ] She has not done any personal follow up regarding her parental capacities nor has she informed herself on the dynamics of conjugal violence. [ 53 ] Although she is taking care of her infant daughter, she is supported by Mr. C in doing so.

He play’s a security role for their child. [ 54 ] Although Mr.

C has claimed that he would like to adopt X, he has not done so and has no rights nor obligations regarding this child. [ 55 ] The mother requests that the child be returned to her care and the Director, to maintain the child with his foster family until his age of majority. [ 56 ] The Youth protection Act has established maximum periods of placement at the end of which a tribunal must decide on a permanent plan for the child [2] . [ 57 ] It is possible to make an exception to these durations under certain conditions: “However, if the interest of the child demands it, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family environment in the short term or if there are serious reasons for doing so.

The fact that services mentioned in an agreement or in an order of the tribunal have not been provided constitutes, among others, a serious reason.” [3] [ 58 ] In X’s situation, the maximum placement period has expired since July 21 st , 2021. [ 59 ] The Court finds that none of the exceptions stated in the law apply to this case. [ 60 ] The child is receiving answer to all his needs in his foster family. It is important for the child to ensure continuity of care as well as the stability of the child’s relationships and of living conditions appropriate to his needs and age [4] .

[ 61 ] Thus, the Court finds that the evidence supports the recommendation of the Director to entrust X to Mrs.

B until he reaches the age of majority as being in the child’s best interests. [ 62 ] In terms of the frequency and modality of contact with the mother, it must be continued and be encouraged because there is an emotional bond between the child and the mother. [ 63 ] This being said, the evidence shows that they must still need to be supervised. [ 64 ] Because of the chronicity of the mother’s difficulties, the supervision could be lifted when and only when X will be older and not so dependent of his caregivers to receive answer to his needs. [ 65 ] The situation will then have to be assessed and the supervision could be lifted as the situation allows. [ 66 ] As to the supervision being exercised by third parties, he agrees that Mrs.

B can supervised some contacts and maybe other persons around the mother who would have to assessed and authorized by the Director. [ 67 ] Regarding Mr. C, the child does not know him very well. He only has lived with him for the first four months of his life, and then only seen him for four visits.. The court does not see him as a reassuring figure for the child. [ 68 ] The court is of the opinion that there should be a minimum of contacts, set in the order.

That once every two weeks should be the minimum contact as requested by the child’s lawyer, it is in the best interest of the child to ensure that there is discontinuity of contact with the mother. [ 69 ] As for the withdrawal of the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority, the Court finds that the Director has met his burden regarding health services but not for other aspects of the parental authority. [ 70 ] When the mother neglected or refused to give her authorizations, the child suffered prejudice. [ 71 ] The mother said that she had not consulted regarding the preschool trial and when the court asked her if she would have consented and very spontaneously, she said yes. [ 72 ] When she refused to allow for the child to leave the province, she was justified in doing so as it would have impacted her relationship with her child. [ 73 ] When the time comes for authorizations for the child to travel, the court believes that the mother will not deny her son of this opportunity. [ 74 ] Having read the reports and heard the testimonial evidence, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger on the grounds of serious risk of neglect; REVISES the Court order rendered on December 9, 2021, in the present file; ENTRUSTS the child X to a kinship foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center, namely Mrs.

B; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favor, supervised contacts with the mother, by a third party determined by the Director of Youth Protection, upon agreement between the parties; failing agreement, the modalities and frequency of the contacts will be once every two weeks; AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision if the situation allows it; ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to themselves or the child to end the compromising situation; ORDERS that the mother participate actively and with honesty to the measures set forth to end the compromising situation; WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding healthcare; ENTRUSTS Mrs.

B with the exercise of the attributes of parental authority withdrawn from the mother; ORDERS that a person, working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family until his majority on [...], 2037; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X 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 Claudel Vachon Counsel for the child Hearing date: April 21 st . 2023 Exhibits filed: D-10 and D-11