2012 QCCQ 17558, 2012 QCCQ 17558

Protection de la jeunesse — 127009 2012 QCCQ 17558 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] N°: 525-41-021044-086 DATE: October 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born[…] , 2004 - and - B - and - C Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 10, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered February 16, 2011, entrusting the child to his mother’s care along with other measures and a social follow-up until March 1, 2012. [ 3 ] In January 2012, the Director of Youth Protection filed a motion for extension followed by a motion for provisional measures asking the Court, amongst other things, to order that the mother collaborate with social services and allow the youth protection delegate access to the child when required, as well as access to information regarding the child. [ 4 ] The merits of the case were set for March 22, 2012.

On that date, DYP asked for a postponement as a new signalement had been received on March 21, 2012. The postponement was granted and the measures ordered on February 16, 2011 were maintained. The next hearing was set for May 1, 2012. [ 5 ] However, on April 30, 2012, the Director of Youth Protection filed a motion for revision and provisional compulsory foster care of the child.

At the hearing of May 1, 2012, the Court granted the motion for compulsory foster care and ordered that X be entrusted to foster care until the next court date set for June 8, 2012. [ 6 ] An amended motion for revision and extension was filed by DYP on May 24. The Court heard a number of witnesses on June 8, 2012, and the hearing was continued to July 26, 2012. However, On June 22, DYP filed another motion for revision, asking that the child be removed from his foster family and entrusted to a rehabilitation centre.

The motion was granted by the Court and the hearing set for July 26 was maintained. [ 7 ] On July 26, 2012, the Court maintained the measures ordered on June 22 and the case was continued to October 10, 2012. [ 8 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the amended motion for revision are the following:

• The mother has made it clear that she does not want A Youth and Family Centres in her family’s life and expected that the Director of Youth Protection's involvement would end on March 1, 2012; • There have been significant issues related to lateness and absenteeism of the child from school; • The child’s teacher said to the mother that she and the school psychologist strongly support the child undergoing a complete psycho-educational assessment as their observations indicate the child has both emotional/behavioural management difficulties and learning difficulties, which are impacting his progress; • The mother first refused the assessment and then changed her mind and suggested that she would support testing which focused more on the child’s intelligence or learning skills and, should it then be deemed necessary, she would support further psychological testing; • The child has an increasingly difficult time managing his behaviour at school; • After several scheduled appointments made with the mother to come to school to observe the child’s behaviour, the mother finally attended the meeting in November 2011; • The mother’s level of collaboration and availability to address issues with the child’s school personnel was inconsistent and deteriorated significantly; • The child’s progress in school deteriorated when he did not attend consistently, on time and organized; • The mother was offered the services of an educator to assist and support with setting up routines for the child and his siblings but she clearly stated that she did not want this intervention; • Between June 2, 2011, and April 26, 2012, a total of seven signalements were retained for evaluation concerning the family; • On October 16, 2011, the mother gave birth to a baby boy and now has seven children under her care; • The mother’s availability and willingness to actively address and remedy the issues related to school attendance and lateness for school remains inconsistent; • These issues have had a significant impact on the child’s academic development and have been largely outside their capacity to improve without the mother taking the lead in these matters; • The ongoing presence of these issues presents an important risk to the child’s development; • The mother continues to struggle with meeting her children’s basic physical needs; • Until his placement at the end of April 2012, X was frequently not prepared when he arrived at school as he did not have his lunch nor his school bag; X was also very tired, unkempt and not properly dressed; • X reported that he saw bugs on his mattress at home and he was observed to have insect bites on his arms and legs on April 26, 2012; • Y and Z have also often arrived at school unprepared; • In April 2012, X reported that the mother uses and threatens to use physical discipline on him and on all his siblings, except for A; X reported that A gets pinched by the mother; • In April 2012, Z also reported being physically disciplined by the mother; • The mother continues to consume drugs, as she tested positive on April 12, 2012, and May 10, 2012; • The mother continues to not be transparent and cooperative with the Director of Youth Protection and to not acknowledge any of the risk issues concerning her children; • The mother continues to be very impulsive and to have frequent anger outbursts; • The mother continues to not sustain the gains that she made after receiving help from the Director of Youth Protection for more than ten years. [ 9 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be maintained in a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months, that the child undergo a psychiatric assessment, along with other measures and that a social follow-up be provided to the child and his family for a period of nine months. [ 10 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion, but contests the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection.

The mother is asking that the child be entrusted to her care. [ 11 ] The mother testifies that she has moved to A and that her apartment is adequate to receive her children. The mother says that she agrees to collaborate with DYP and to undergo random drug testing. She says that X and all the children want to return to her care. Furthermore, that she receives support from her spouse, Mr. D, with whom she started cohabitating in August 2012, to look after her children.

[ 12 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. Me Flexer considers that the mother is not in a position to answer all of the child’s needs and has not collaborated adequately with DYP. However, Me Flexer informs the Court that X wishes to return home and to have more contacts with his mother and siblings. [ 13 ] The psycho educational assessment of the child was done in January, February and May 2012 by Shanna Williams, M. A. in Education and Counselling Psychology, and supervised by Andrew Bennett, Ph. D., Supervising Clinical Psychologist.

Although, the mother was asked to attend certain meetings, she did not present herself and therefore, the child's developmental milestones and behaviour at home could not be obtained. [ 14 ] The report mentions that the child is attending the Reach program and that he was referred for the assessment due to his behavioural difficulties and learning disabilities. The child presented as likable and friendly, but his appearance was at times dishevelled.

At times, the child spoke with a stutter, particularly at the start or end of sentences. [ 15 ] X’s functioning within the Conceptual Domain fell in the Below Average range (19 percentile). This measured the child's functioning at home, at school and the community, based on communication, functional academics and self-direction. [ 16 ] The child was administered the WISC-IV to assess his intellectual achievement, as well as his general thinking and reasoning skills.

The child fell within the extremely low range of intellectual development and places him at the one percentile, indicating that his overall thinking and reasoning skills are well below those of the majority of his peers. [ 17 ] The WIAT-III was administrated to evaluate X’s academic performance. X was unable to complete the majority of the subtests.

The reading skills fell within the low range, the alphabet writing fluency subtest fell within the average range indicating good fine motor control and math problem solving fell within the below average range. [ 18 ] The psychologists made a number of recommendations, including that the child be seen by a paediatrician to address his physical needs. Also, that the child undergo a psychiatric evaluation, that the parents contact the CLSC to determine if the child is eligible for social services supports (handicap allowance).

Finally, they concluded that more tests are needed to obtain more comprehensive assessment of the child’s abilities and his academic functioning. [ 19 ] The evidence reveals that when the child was in his mother’s care, he was regularly absent or late for school. Furthermore, he was extremely tired and often slept in class. A marked improvement was observed after the child integrated the foster home and subsequently the rehabilitation centre. X was no longer sleepy in school and his academic performance improved.

Physical abuse [ 20 ] On June 8, 2012, the child testified that he wanted to return home to live with his mother. When asked what needed to be fixed in order for him to go home, he answered that he wanted his mother to stop smoking in the house and to stop hitting him and his brothers and sisters. [ 21 ] X explained that his mother hits him with a belt or with her hands. That she hits him on his hands and his back. X also explained that he was hit with a spatula and that he saw Z being hit with this instrument. [ 22 ] X gave examples of when his mother gets angry.

For example, when he throws things with his friends or when he goes outside with his brothers when he was not allowed. He also stated that when his mother sleeps and he wakes her up, she gets very angry and hits him. He went on to say that he saw his brothers and sisters being hit on more and one occasion, except for Isaiah and A. [ 23 ] X says that his mother smokes cigarettes in the house and that she smokes weed on the balcony and in the basement. When she smokes weed, her boyfriend “E” is present. [ 24 ] X reported and explained to his teacher and to the youth worker that he was hit by his mother.

According to the evidence, the child reported quite regular physical abuse by the mother. [ 25 ] In her testimony, the mother admitted hitting X with a corduroy belt or with an open hand, but only when he had done something wrong. The mother states that she never physically abuses her children. [ 26 ] The child was very credible in his testimony and capable of giving examples of when his mother gets angry. Furthermore, the child wants to return home, but wishes for things to change.

As for the mother, she is impulsive and has had anger outbursts in front of the school authorities and the youth workers. [ 27 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that the child was victim of physical abuse by his mother. Conclusion [ 28 ] The family has been followed by DYP since 2008 and there have been twelve signalements during DYP's involvement with the family. Concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance and the mother’s instability.

Furthermore, the mother's collaboration with DYP has been inadequate, especially since the last Court order. [ 29 ] At the last Court hearing, the mother had her spouse, D, testify to confirm that he helps her with the children. He informed the Court that has been living with the mother for several months, including at her apartment in D. The Immigration status of Mr. D in Canada was not clear and he currently does not work. [ 30 ] This testimony contradicted the mother's who had stated that Mr. D had only been living with her since August 2012. Furthermore, X confirmed that Mr.

D, that the children call "E", smokes weed with his mother. [ 31 ] The father, Mr. C, and the teachers reported that X was unkempt and very tired. For example, he sometimes went to school without

any underwear. It also often happened that he did not have a lunch and the teachers had to provide him with food. [ 32 ] The evidence demonstrates clearly that X has made gains since he was placed and that he is able to follow a routine when provided with structure. X was registered at a school in the C area in September 2012 and the school professionals report that he is managing well. [ 33 ] The father has not been consistent and his ability to visit with his son during the organized weekend visits.

Furthermore, the father does not always collaborate with the social intervention. [ 34 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months. The mother has demonstrated inappropriate physical discipline towards her son and there are long standing and chronic issues around neglect and inadequate supervision of the children. The mother must address these issues before X can return to her care. [ 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 nine months; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary and ORDERS that the contacts be extended, if the situation allows; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, that the contacts be encouraged and that the father’s address remain confidential to the mother; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his situation and more particularly, that he undergo a psychiatric assessment and that the recommendations of the psychiatrist, Dr.

Gill, be followed; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the recommendations of the School A Board Assessment be followed; [ 43 ] ORDERS the mother to undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent to do so; [ 44 ] ORDERS the mother to submit to a psychiatric assessment and to follow the recommendations made and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo a psychiatric assessment and RECOMMENDS that this assessment be done by Dr.

Gill; [ 45 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all mood altering substances, unless prescribed by her doctor; [ 46 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all forms of violence, verbal or physical, including threats of physical harm during the contacts with the child; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling through her local CLSC; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the mother provide DYP with the medicare card of the child; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES that DYP apply for the medicare card of the child, if the mother has not provided the medicare card by November 15; [ 50 ] ORDERS the mother not to present herself at the child’s school, without the permission of DYP; [ 51 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to sign all needed consents pertaining to the child for the purpose of education, assessments, therapeutic interventions, medical and dental services, in the event that the mother or the father cannot be reached within in a reasonable delay; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with all of the services providers working with the family; [ 53 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to make unannounced home visits at the mother’s home; [ 54 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of nine months; [ 55 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 56 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed December 12, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Counsel for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: June 8, July 26, October 10, 2012