2014 QCCQ 13502, 2014 QCCQ 13502

Protection de la jeunesse — 141581 2014 QCCQ 13502 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] N°: 525-41-021044-086 DATE: January 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2004 - and - E - and - F Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 16, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order rendered October 10, 2012, entrusting the child to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months, along with a social follow-up and other specific measures. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child has remained at A House Group Home; • Even though the child continues to exhibit behaviour problems at times, he has made significant gains since his placement at A House; • The mother was allowed to have unsupervised weekend contacts with the child until the end of November 2012; • On November 28, 2012, a signalement was received concerning the mother being physically abusive to the child and his siblings; • On December 6, 2012, Y and X reported that the mother is physically abusive to them and their siblings when they misbehave, except for A, and that it has happened since they were placed; • On December 6, 2012, the child reported that during a weekend visit, the mother grabbed B by the collar of his shirt and hit him repeatedly because he hurt Z; • Z confirmed that the mother hit B a lot after B had hit him in the stomach; • On December 6, 2012, Y and X also reported that the mother uses foul language when they misbehave; • B, C, D and the mother deny that the mother is physically or verbally abusive to her children;

• Since the evaluation of the signalement was completed, the visits between the child and the mother are supervised at organization A; • In January 2013, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment which did not provide any explanation for the mother’s inability to integrate the parenting strategies provided by the Director of Youth Protection over the years; • Moreover, the mother continues to not be transparent, nor does she cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection; • The father is minimally involved in the child’s life; • Ms. G and Mr.

H, who have known the child since his birth, have been assessed and are willing to have the child entrusted to their care. [ 4 ] The case of the child and that of his siblings proceeded on October 2, 3 and November 20, 2013 and January 16, 2014. [ 5 ] Initially the recommendations of DYP on the motion and in the Court report dated May 29, 2013, were for the child to be entrusted to the care of G and H for a period of one year with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 6 ] At the hearing of October 2, 2013, the Director of Youth Protection informed the Court that their recommendations had changed, as Ms.

G and Mr. H had decided not to receive any of the children since they could not be recognized as a specific foster home. [ 7 ] Therefore, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months with integration into a confidential foster home when the situation allows. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 8 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and consents to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection.

However, the mother denies being physically abusive towards her children. Concerning the incident that occurred on November 24, 2012, the mother testifies that Z and B were fighting and that she told B that he was older and knew better then to play roughly. She states that she disciplined them, but denies hitting them. [ 9 ] The mother testifies that she moved back to town A in October 18, 2013, in order for the child’s sibling, D, to go to school.

The mother says that she collaborates with DYP and that her apartment is adequate to receive her younger children on weekends. [ 10 ] The father testifies that he agrees with the measures recommended by DYP. He says that he works on call at night and therefore can't take care of his son on a full time basis. He believes his son's disclosures concerning the physical discipline. [ 11 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. Me Flexer states that it would be important for X to receive therapeutic services, including art therapy.

He also urges the parents to be regular in their contacts with their son, in order for the child to regain a certain self- confidence. Me Flexer considers that the mother’s testimony was troubling as to her living arrangements, particularly the fact that she did not produce a copy of the lease for the apartment where she is currently residing. In order for the situation to improve, the mother will need to collaborate with DYP in a transparent manner. [ 12 ] The psychiatric evaluation of the child was conducted by Dr. Michel Gil, psychia-trist, and the report is dated November 20, 2012.

The psychiatrist notes that the child's attitude is good and that he presents with no nervous tics or stereotypes. However, the displays some opposition and presents with a number of scares, cuts and burns. [ 13 ] The psychiatrist also mentions that there are certain indications of ADHD and some characteristics of opposition. There are signs of neglect and the low score of the child on the ABAS-II test indicates an important lack of stimulation and a lack of autonomy.

Also, the low score on the WISC test indicates a limited cognitive potential. [ 14 ] The psychiatrist concludes as follows: Il y aurait lieu de compléter l’évaluation psychiatrique avec celle de sa mère et favoriser la stabilisation du fonctionnement, comme elle semble être observée au foyer de groupe. Dans un deuxième temps et advenant un plafonnement dans les apprentissages, il pourra s’avérer judicieux de procéder à un essai de traitement pharmacothérapique d’un TDAH. [ 15 ] The mother's psychiatric evaluation was conducted by Dr.

Michel Gil, psychiatrist, in January 2013. [ 16 ] The psychiatrist mentions that the mother arrived on time, that orientation and sensorial elements are preserved and that no disassociative elements were observed . The mother displays a certain distractibility, compatible with her diagnosis of ADHD. The mother presents no suicidal ideations or ideas of violence. However, social and practical judgement seems affected by some immaturity and self- criticism is partial. The mother has had seven children and many voluntary termination of pregnancies with a number of fathers.

She basically raised her children on her own. [ 17 ] The psychiatrist established the following diagnosis: Axe I : Trouble déficitaire de l’attention avec hyperactivité vraisemblablement responsable d’une

partie de son hyperactivité et quelques difficultés organisationnelles (retards, un certain éparpillement et un certain degré d’impulsivité); on retrouve également des antécédents de dyslexie. Axe II : au niveau de la personnalité, on retrouve quelques traits de personnalité du groupe B avec expression émotionnelle intense, quelques aspects carentiels et impulsivité.

Axe III : non contributif. Axe IV : . monoparentalité, sept enfants; . placement récent des enfants; . interactions difficiles avec les services de protection de la jeunesse; . réticence historique pour les traitements médicaux. Axe V : ÉGF à 70. [ 18 ] The psychiatrist concludes that the mother does not present any pathologies that could justify a reference or entrustment to a specialised setting. He recommends that a medication be tried for her ADHD, in order to increase her efficiency and enhance her organisational skills.

However, the mother refuses to take medication and this type of treatment would not compensate for all of her emotional and relationship difficulties. [ 19 ] The Court heard a numbers of witnesses during the four days of hearing. The Court also read the reports and addendums filed by the Director of Youth Protection as proof of the child’s situation. [ 20 ] On October 10, 2012, the Court declared the security and development of the child still compromised under

section 38 b) 1) neglect,

c) psychological ill treatment, and compromised under e) 1) physical abuse, of the Youth Protection Act . A new signalement was received on November 28, 2012, concerning an incident that would have occurred on November 24, 2012, at the mother’s home. [ 21 ] The signalement was retained under

section 38 e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act for Y, X and B and under

section 38 e) 2) of the Youth Protection Act for C. X and Y both reported clearly to the youth worker that their mother hits them and their siblings and uses foul language when they misbehave. [ 22 ] X reported that his mother hits him with an open hand on his arms, back and bum and with a closed fist on the back of his head and the back of his neck. The child said that he has seen his mother hit his siblings, except for A. [ 23 ] Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, X stated that Z and B were fighting and that his mother grabbed B by the collar and hit him repeatedly.

X says he remem-bers this incident as B cried because he was wearing his favourite shirt, which was ripped. [ 24 ] X confirmed to his lawyer that the mother is physically abusive to him and his siblings when they misbehave, except for A. He also confirmed to his lawyer the incident whereby B was hit repeatedly by the mother. [ 25 ] Y reported that her mother hits her with an open hand on her cheek and on her mouth. The child said that she has seen her mother hit her siblings, except for A.

She confirmed these statements to her lawyer. [ 26 ] Z confirmed to the youth worker on December 18, 2012, and to his lawyer that the mother hit B repeatedly on November 24, 2012, after they had been fighting. [ 27 ] B denied that his mother uses physical discipline towards him or his siblings. Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, he states that he was play-fighting with Z. His mother got upset because he accidentally hurt his brother.

His mother yelled and gave him a time-out. [ 28 ] D and C denied that their mother is physically or verbally abusive to them or their siblings; [ 29 ] The mother denied using physical discipline, but acknowledged that she uses foul language around the children, although she says it is never directed at them. [ 30 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that the child was victim of physical abuse by his mother. [ 31 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s situation has changed very little since the last Court order, October 10, 2012.

The family has received services from DYP since 2008 and concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance, physical abuse and the mother’s instability. Although the mother has said, on numerous occasions, that she is willing to collaborate with DYP, she continues to miss meetings with the youth workers and not to collaborate in a transparent manner. [ 32 ] The mother is currently living in town B in a four and half room apartment with her spouse, I, and her mother. She is currently living on welfare and has not worked since March 2013 when she quit her job at Company A.

The mother states that she is currently looking for employment and wants to complete her hotel reception program. [ 33 ] The father is not in a position to answer to the child's needs on a full time basis. The father occasionally takes his son for the weekend, but can be difficult to reach at times. [ 34 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months with

integration to a confidential foster home when the situation allows and to remain in foster care until January 16, 2015. The child does present with certain difficulties and therefore it will be important for him to receive therapeutic services, including art therapy. [ 35 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 37 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X, under

section 38 b) 1),

c) and e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of four months, with integration to a confidential foster home when the situation allows and that he remain in foster care until January 16, 2015; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the father’s extended family be encouraged and that these contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to sign all needed consents pertaining to the child for the purpose of education, assessments, therapeutic intervention, medical and dental services, in the event that the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his situation, and more particularly, that he receive art and occupational therapy and that he be seen by Dr.

Ferdinand when needed; [ 43 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all form of physical or verbal violence towards the child, including threats of physical harm; [ 44 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from making derogatory comments about the father and caregivers; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling through her local CLSC; [ 46 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 47 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family; [ 48 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 50 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed April 25, 2014 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Flexer Counsel for the child Me Richard Benoit Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: October 2, and 2, 2013, November 20, 2013 and January 16, 2014