2012 QCCQ 10267, 2012 QCCQ 10267

Protection de la jeunesse — 124172 2012 QCCQ 10267 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000322-124 DATE: June 11, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ A Petitioner and X Child and B and C Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for protection purpose in respect of X (2012-[…]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The petition is based on the following assertions and facts :

a) on March 23, 2012, a complaint was made to the Director of youth protection concerning X ’s situation ;

b) the following facts were reported by the plaintiff : 1) the mother has intellectual limitations ; 2) the parents have alcohol and drug problems ; 3) the mother drank alcohol on a regular basis during her pregnancy ; 4) the mother missed a lot of appointments with her doctor for her pregnancy follow-up ;

5) the mother was supposed to take medication for her epilepsy problem and she did not take it ; 6) the mother does not know how to read or write so she does not know how to prepare milk for her baby ;

c) the complaint was retained as situation in which there is a serious risk that a child’s parents are not providing the child’s basic needs and considering the child vulnerability ;

d) the father has more parental capacities but he is often absent from home ;

e) the father has six other children in [City A] ;

f) the medical staff reported that the mother shows little interest for her baby and she refused the teaching that they offer to the parents ;

g) they also observed that the mother has difficulties to change the diapers and did not take the initiative to feed her baby ;

h) the hospital staff were worried about the mother’s capacity to answer her newborn needs ;

i) on March 26, 2012, the mother returned home with her baby and the father was supposed to be there ;

j) the same day the father left for [City A] , leaving the mother with the baby without enough milk for the baby and no money ;

k) on March 27, 2012, the Director of youth protection took an immediate protective measure and entrusted the baby to a foster family ;

l) the father does not recognize that the mother has serious intellectual limitations ;

m) on March 29, a supervised visit was organised at the Director of youth protection office, the father was smelling alcohol but he said he did not drink ;

n) the mother had a follow up from the social services of the CLSC and the intervener also observed her limitations ;

o) considering all the professionals’ worries about the parent’s capacities and the vulnerability of the newborn, it is important to evaluate their capacities. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and unrepresented. They admit the situation described at the petition and accept the recommendations of the Director of youth protection. [ 4 ] The child's lawyer admits the allegations of the petition and accepts as well the recommendations of the Director of youth protection. [ 5 ] The Court studied the psychosocial report and the one of a social intervener of the CLSC.

The Court also examined the reports (and their translation in English) of a psychologist regarding the parental capacities. [ 6 ] Here are the conclusion and recommendations of the psychologist regarding the mother :

"Our observations, clinical discussions with the case workers and other workers involved, and our assessment of Mrs C 's parenting capacity have led us to the conclusion that the latter does have some parenting capacity. However, she can not answer to all the needs of her daughter by herself. She has general knowledge of an infant's needs and can enumerate them, speaking of love, protection, attention and food. When we do fairly complex situation exercises, Mrs C is hesitant about responding to our questions. We feel that this is rooted in her comprehension level, her shyness and her fear of getting it wrong.

She ends by giving a minimal response, but that response is not always complete. The fact that Mrs C is gradually showing sings of attachment to her baby makes us feel better. Mrs C is increasingly at ease in her role as a mother. Mr B's presence ensures a better response to X 's needs. The couple supports each other in their strengths and weaknesses. We also observe that the couple is stable and has a fairly balanced routine. They lead a quiet life and have a decent support network. They are easy to reach and available for meetings with us.

They are the only ones who take care of their daughter; they take care of her and provide a stable framework for her life. Mrs C is proud to be a mother. It is our considered opinion that at present, the risk of neglect is not sufficient to justify placing the baby. For now, we have no reason to think that Baby X 's basic needs are not being met. The parents are stable and available for their daughter. The presence of CLSC and Youth Protection agency workers in the couple's life has galvanized their parenting activity. It is our considered opinion that these two services must remain present.

We feel that both parents want to do the right thing and be good parents for their daughter. The situation is at risk and need to be supervising by the Youth Protection." [ 7 ] Here are the conclusion and recommendations of the psychologist regarding the father : "After our observations, clinical discussions with the case workers and other workers involved, and our assessment of Mr B's parenting capacity, we have concluded that the latter does have some parenting capacity. He has some knowledge of an infant's needs and can enumerate them, speaking of love, protection, stability, proper food and care.

When we do complex situation exercises, Mr B tends toward concrete thinking, but he does think about the basic elements required to ensure the safety of his child. He has less understanding of the child's need for stimulation, and therefore does not respond as well to this need. The fact that Mrs C is gradually showing sings of attachment to her baby makes us feel better, since Mr B is less at ease in this area. The fact that Mrs C is present means that X 's needs will be better met. The couple supports each other in their strengths and weaknesses.

We also observe that the couple is stable and has a fairly balanced routine. They lead a quiet life and have a decent support network. They are easy to reach and available for meetings with us. They are the only ones who take care of their daughter; they take care of her and provide a stable framework for her life. Mr B clearly wants to be a good father. It is our considered opinion that at present, the risk of neglect is not sufficient to justify placing the baby. For now, we have no reason to think that Baby X's basic needs are not being met. The parents are stable and available for their daughter.

The presence of CLSC and Youth Protection agency workers in the couple's life has galvanized their parenting activity. We have seen that both parents want to do the right thing and be good parents for their daughter. The situation is still at risk and the Youth Protection need to be involves providing supervision.

By himself as a parent, Mr B can not answer to all his daughter needs." [ 8 ] The evidence permits that the child be entrusted to her parents under a close supervision, taking also into account the parent's collaboration and desire to improve their parental abilities. [ 9 ] Considering the report's content and the position of the parties, the Court grants the petition in the sense of the recommendation of the Director of youth protection. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 10 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 11 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to her parents, Mr B and Mrs C ; [ 12 ] ORDERS that the father reports to the Director of youth protection when he leaves home for more than one day and that it be previously planned, including the presence of a responsible adult at home if deemed necessary ; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the parents do not use alcohol or be under the influence of alcohol in the presence of X ; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures intended to put an end to the situation of endangerment ;

[ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to participate to follow-up with social services from the CLSC ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and her family ; [ 17 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until June 30, 2013, for the carrying out of the present measures. __________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. Me Janick Poirier, for the petitioner Me Mathieu Racine, for the child Mr B, the father Mrs C, the mother