2019 QCCQ 15918, 2019 QCCQ 15918

Protection de la jeunesse — 196012 2019 QCCQ 15918 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000415-167 DATE: August 6, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2016 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 October 12, 2018, in respect of the child. They request that she be entrusted to a foster family until […] 2034, date of her majority. Her brother is aimed by the same procedure but with different conclusions. The parties agree to proceed by common evidence. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present, only the mother is assisted by a lawyer.

The mother asks for the immediate return of her son, if not, that the delay of the placement be reduced to six months. For her daughter, she asks for a progressive return to the family environment. Regarding the father, he requests the immediate return of his son and for his daughter, he shared the same position as the mother. [ 3 ] The proof of the DYP consists of both documentary and testimonial evidence. For the parents, some documentary evidence is deposited as well as their testimony and that of other witnesses.

CONTEXT [ 4 ] In the last judgment ordered on October 12, 2017, the parents agreed that the child be entrusted to a foster family, and they were well aware that this family was not from the father’s community. [ 5 ] Furthermore, the Court wishes to highlight certain paragraphs of the judgment about the family situation at the time, as hereby reproduced: [8] The father is intimidating and arrogant towards the professionals of the DYP. When asked to calm down, he becomes verbally aggressive and violent.

When they try to make recommendations to him concerning the child, he gets mad and blames everyone except himself. […] [10] He spends a lot of time intimidating the youth delegates instead of spending quality time with his daughter. He blames them for the manner in which he acts. He does not take responsibly for his outbursts. He also spends a lot of time talking badly about the foster family’s mother. Once again, instead of caring for his child, he expresses his anger towards people involved with his daughter’s situation. The collaboration of the father is mitigated.

Recently, he has shown some improvement with his collaboration. He is now able to discuss respectfully with the DYP delegates.

[…] [31] The parents are taking steps to provide a stable and secure environment for their daughter. Both of them are seeking help to work on their issues but they are not consistent with the appointments. They don’t seem to take seriously their follow-ups. It is impossible to assess the situation since they don’t show up at their sessions and they don’t give access to any information in regards to those follow- ups.

The situation of the parents, at this time, does not seem to have evolved much since the last measures. […] [35] The parents need to get in action and mobilize themselves and collaborate with the services. The father has to stop acting up every time he is not pleased with a situation and the mother have to take her place, or else a life project will have to be established for the child.

She cannot wait for them to get better and she has the right to have a good life for herself. [ 6 ] After reviewing all the evidence, it seems that since the last measure was rendered, the situation has not progressed, and has even deteriorated. All the professionals involved with the parents, all come to the same conclusion. • Father’s Situation [ 7 ] The father had a follow-up for anger management as well as for his impulsive-ness. However, no reports or specific details are given as to the frequency of these meetings, the objectives or their results.

Furthermore, the letter filed confirming the meetings of March 20 and April 5, 2018, is not recent and contains very little information. [ 8 ] The father insults and is disrespectful to the professionals. He often screams and swears at them. He implies that the interveners implicated in his file all have a biased opinion of him because of his criminal past as well as for threats he made against two of their colleagues.

In doing so, according to him, any person who intervenes in, shares the opinion that he is dangerous or have a negative appreciation of him. [ 9 ] He believes professionals need to adjust to him and not the opposite. He does not change his negative opinion of the DYP and does not intend to do so in the immediate future, nor to change anything in his personal situation, at least that’s what is indicated in the reports produced as well as what he mentioned in his testimony.

On his part, he never took any action to improve his relation with the professionals of the DYP. [ 10 ] Contrary to the parent’s assertions throughout the testimonies rendered by the professionals, at no time does the Court find that they have any grudges or prejudices against the father. Undeniably, they are aware of the problems of the father, and they try to get his collaboration, without success. Despite the many efforts made, and the multitude of discussions or interventions attempted nothing seems to have changed.

Obviously, they act professionally, and this, taking into account the particularities of the parents, and this since the beginning of their involvement with the family. Unques-tionably, parents show rigidity and closure of mind when trying to advise or help them. [ 11 ] The father is not able to control himself and even displays it during the hearing. At times, he may adopt a somewhat questionable attitude, going as far as be arrogant at some point, and he does not always listen. Furthermore, he makes derogatory remarks to the foster mother while she is waiting in the corridor, which is totally unacceptable.

In fact, this only demonstrates and corroborates several aspects observed by the interveners in respect with the father’s attitude. [ 12 ] The father does not give priority to the follow-up sessions or visits with his daughter and leaves the mother in charge despite her limitations. He refuses any responsibility for the existing problems and he puts the blame on others and, furthermore, is he is not motivated to make changes. [ 13 ] The father has an important trust issue which leads him to adopt a defensive attitude.

The psychological assessment of the father 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. • Mother’s Situation [ 14 ] The mother does not understand the DYP’s intervention but collaborates better compared to the father. She seems more open to the interveners in the absence of the father.

When he is present, her behaviour changes because he has a great influence and control over her. [ 15 ] The mother when faced with certain unforeseen situations reacts intensively and in a disproportionate manner. She panics, screams and insults, sometimes in the presence of the children. She is asked to calm down but does not comply and does not care as she says openly. In fact, she often gets angry while the children are present, which she denies. Still, the overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion.

Moreover, during her cross-examination, we can observe this, when certain questions are asked, she is clearly dissatisfied, upset and demonstrates it. [ 16 ] On several occasions, the mother admits that she finds it difficult to care for both children at the same time. • Environment [ 17 ] The physical environment of the parents is frequently unsafe and unhealthy. The child’s room is cluttered with objects just like the rest of the apartment. A strong smell of animal urine is also noticeable.

Despite several interventions about this aspect, the situation changes little or not at all. [ 18 ] During visitation, the social workers and the educators have often observed the apartment in an inadequate state. The need for

the apartment to be clean at all times is mentioned many times to the parents, but it remains very unstable. They clean sometimes, but it never lasts long and we have to remind them repeatedly, but this persists in time. The parents do not take seriously the numerous interventions concerning that matter to correct this particular issue. [ 19 ] The event which occurred on April 26, 2019, was the last straw and could no longer be tolerated. The father states that everybody is exaggerating what they saw, but the Court does not share this opinion.

The parents tend to minimize things and even less to recognize them as problems. It is part of their dynamic. The witnesses are formal about the state of the premises and their young son’s condition, that day. The police officer claims to have removed the scissors from the table, while a child was walking around without supervision and who opened the door. The situation went too far and an intervention was needed. • Child [ 20 ] The parent’s benefit from regular visits with the child about twelve hours per week. The mother takes more initiative with her daughter than the father who holds back.

The parents can generally meet their child’s basic needs. She is comfortable to be at her parents’ place during the access, but she is ready to leave when her foster mother arrives to pick her up. [ 21 ] Over the weeks, the father is not consistent with his visits with his daughter. He missed many of them. It is noticed that the bond of secure attachment is more with the foster mother than with her parents. Of course, she has a bond of knowledge with them but the child recognizes her foster mother as the person who meets her physical and emotional needs.

At the hearing, the parents seem focused more on their son than on their daughter. [ 22 ] The child is 3 years old and has been entrusted to her current foster family since she was two months old. Of course, at the beginning of the placement, there were some apprehensions about this foster family. However, the situation is no longer the same because of the collaboration of the foster mother and her active participation with the DYP. [ 23 ] The parents are trying to undermine the foster family, but at no time, do they question their own behaviour.

Nevertheless, once again it is constant with their dynamic that it is everyone’s fault except theirs. [ 24 ] The foster mother is completely involved in the development of the child. She collaborates actively with the DYP. She is proactive to respond to the child’s needs and takes personal initiatives in this direction. She makes the child feel secure, which has an enormous impact on the latter. The foster mother wants to take care of the child until her majority, and her environment is adequate for the child.

ANALYSIS & DECISION [ 25 ] At the hearing, all the parties spend a lot of time on two particular events: April 26, 2019, the visit where the youngest child is left to himself and on another day a call during which the father insults and shouts at the mother. Of course, those events are important but a lot more than that must be considered.

Many other issues occurred involving the parents. [ 26 ] The assessment of parenting capacities concludes that the child should be entrusted to her current foster family, because the parents cannot assure the child, an optimal development long-term, as hereby summarized by the professional: «Since the parents do not recognize the extent of the situation, do not demonstrate intent and abilities to correct the situation as Isabella’s development requires, we do not believe that they will be able to put the means to end the compromising situation.

A parent who doesn’t recognize his difficulties can’t work on them. [1] ” [ 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. [ 28 ] The father does not agree with the DYP’s intervention, and the mother does not understand it. Ever since, the beginning of their involvement, the DYP established clear goals to achieve with the parents, but they were not reached.

The parents do not allow the DYP to contact the different professionals involved in their personal follow-ups. [ 29 ] Regarding the recording in which we hear the father shouting and insulting the mother, the parents claim that it only happened once and that couples can argue, again, the Court does not believe this version. Moreover, previous judgments indicate the climate of violence that is rampant in the couple and to which children are exposed.

Today we try to make it seem like it was nothing when in fact, their situation has little or not improved since then. [ 30 ] The parents are constantly criticizing the DYP instead of changing their behaviours and improving their parental skills. On numerous occasions, the parents have denied the DYP’s professionals access to their home. Now and then they had to convince them to go in, and they did observe that the apartment was messy. [ 31 ] Even though the mother sometimes presents a more open attitude toward the workers the father withdraws himself from the services offered by the DYP.

He does not acknowledge their advice or ideas. He undermines their role and the objective of the interventions. This is one of the reasons that the child’s follow-ups stagnate. The parents do not provide any information coming from other professionals. They argue with the DYP mostly because they resent their presence. [ 32 ] The follow-up is excessively hard to complete and laborious as the majority of the interventions focus on answering to the parent’s arguments and criticisms instead of improving their parental capacities and working on their difficulties.

Essentially, the overwhelming evidence shows that the parents make it impossible to reach the objectives since the placement of the child on July 2016.

[ 33 ] Sometimes the parents mobilize to meet the demands of the DYP but are not able to maintain their efforts over time. The situation is recurrent and persists since 2016, and it has deteriorated even more since December 2018, after the attempt of a conference settlement. It seems that the parents stopped investing themselves completely with the DYP. [ 34 ] The parents are not transparent with the DYP. Besides, the proof is filled with elements attesting to it. The most eloquent is the denial by parents of any drug consumption, while many times during the visits of the DPJ cannabis smell filled the house.

In addition, several objects of consumption are found there. At the birth of their son, the tests revealed traces of cannabis in his blood. In the last judgment, the father had agreed to undergo drug screening tests but when asked, he refuses to disclose the results. [ 35 ] The parents justify certain behaviours by claiming that interveners are disrespectful with them or use an inappropriate tone. Again, the Court does not believe this. Indeed, after hearing the testimony of the parents, several contradictions emerge from their own versions.

These versions change over time or in accordance to what was said earlier. In so doing, the Court finds their version unreliable and untrustworthy. All of these accusations are really just one way of getting away from the actual problems of not trusting anyone and whoever is trying to help them. [ 36 ] The Court has no doubt that the parents deeply love their child and take care of her properly during the visits. It is not contradicted that they are able to do it for a short time.

The problem lies rather in the actions taken during the access such as having a coarse language, raising their voice, shouting insults and blaming the services, and in the presence of the child. Moreover, even when they are advised to stop, they do not care and do not follow the instructions. This persists over time and seemingly they make no effort to change. [ 37 ] The father states that only two interveners were adequate with him, namely Ms. [social worker 1] and Mr. [social worker 2], even though they do not draw a positive portrait of the parents and seems to have the same position as their colleagues.

Furthermore, this position of parents is surprising because in various reports, they also criticize these two persons. [ 38 ] Mister [social worker 2], the educator, mentions in his report [2] that during the visits the parents frequently use their cell phones. The father wasn’t often present during his visits, and he never asked questions about how he can be better in his role. The parents are not applying all recommendations concerning safety and health. They are not improving in maintaining cleanliness in the apartment.

All the organization regarding the child such as transportation, appointments and attending daycare was done by the interveners or the foster mother not by the parents. He concludes that the parents can take care of the child for a short period of time, but they have not proven their full potential to take care of their daughter regarding responsibility, security and safety. [ 39 ] It was implied that the interveners do not have the required training to intervene with an individual with trust issues. It is quite thoughtless to claim such a thing.

We must not forget that they are professionals who work with a clientele from various backgrounds and with different issues. According to the claim of the father it is up to the DYP to adapt to them and not the opposite. In fact, he does not need to make efforts to establish a good relation. The Court does not agree with that, an aid relationship develops in both directions and not only one way. [ 40 ] After reading all the reports produced by the various interveners involved with this family, the same observations are made by all of them toward the situation.

The collaboration of the parents is almost nonexistent. [ 41 ] The final judgment rendered was clear as to the obligation of the parents to mobilize and collaborate with the services. Obviously, they continued to do what they wanted and made no effort to improve their situation.

The court cannot endorse the attitude of the parents who blame others for their own inaction because, they are the ones who refused the various follow-ups offered since the last order in October 2017 and even from 2016. [ 42 ] As for the request of the DYP, to sign the necessary documents regarding the child, if it is impossible to reach the parents within a reasonable delay or if they give an unjustified refusal, The Court believes that it is appropriate and in her best interest to grant it.

Previously, the parents have already communicated their willingness in cooperating with the professionals involved with the child, but they have not done so, despite their promise. Given this, we cannot trust them. Moreover, their aversion toward the DTP is of such magnitude that the child indirectly bears the consequences. [ 43 ] They criticize the DYP, for the frequent change of interveners in their file, while they are the cause of the departure of most of them, due to their behaviour but especially because of their lack of collaboration.

It is impossible to work one way, in the absence of their involvement, it is difficult to move forward. Besides, it is a concern that the parents used to receive follow-ups, which is no longer the case. [ 44 ] Although the mother participates in several activities with “Family ties”, she does not take any steps to resolve her personal problems. As for the father, he stopped all follow-ups, claiming his work schedule. However, his work is recent while the situation has persisted for months, even years.

The parents do not respect the orders rendered. [ 45 ] Comparing the situation of the family in 2016 to that of 2019, we note that all the concerns raised, remain the same, namely their instability in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness of their living environment, domestic violence, the attitude of the father, his impulsivity, lack of collaboration, lack of stimulation, educational neglect, total lack of recognition of issues and refusal to participate in services offered as well as lack of transparency. Obviously, the parents are reluctant to any kind of change.

They did not make progress since the last measures ordered. [ 46 ] The child needs to be with a reliable adult who is available and able to meet all her needs on a regular basis in the long term. Currently, parents cannot provide such an environment nor in the near future. As previously mentioned, the child needs a secure and healthy environment in order to grow adequately. [ 47 ] After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence, we can conclude that the parent’s environment is still unsuitable for the child.

The father has a hard time to comply with anything rather preferring to accuse others. Obviously, he does not want to collaborate pretexting a multitude of reasons that the Court qualifies as excuses. The mother pretty much follows his lead. During

the last measure ordered, some positive changes seem to have occurred concerning, more specifically, the collaboration of the father, it did not last, as foreseen at the time. Considering the evidence, 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 . WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 48 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of the order; [ 49 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 50 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on October 12, 2017; [ 51 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Mrs.

C, until her majority, which is […], 2034; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents take place following an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised if deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 53 ] ORDERS the child receives all the medical and psychosocial services her situation requires; [ 54 ] ORDERS the parents to contact the DYP to give information regarding the measures they are taking to put an end to the endangerment; [ 55 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign all the medical authorizations, school, extracurricular authorizations and the driving licence authorization form concerning the child, if it is impossible to reach the parents within a reasonable delay or if they give an unjustified refusal; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until […], 2034; [ 57 ] 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. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: June 3, 5 and 14, 2019