2016 QCCQ 8083, 2016 QCCQ 8083

Protection de la jeunesse — 163411 2016 QCCQ 8083 COURT OF QUÉBEC «YOUTH DIVISION»

CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Nos. 525-41-021739-081 525-41-021740-089 DATE: May 16, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X Born on [...], 2006 Y Born on [...], 2005 and DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and A B Parents/Respondents ________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] (Art. 95 Y.P.A.) [ 1 ] JH5272 The Court is seized of an application for review of an order rendered by the undersigned on November 12, 2014. [ 2 ] The Director has recommended that X’s placement in a rehabilitation centre be continued for six months with a view to finding her a foster family.

In Y’s case, the Director has recommended her placement for six months in a foster family that has already been identified. [ 3 ] The parents and children contest the motion. Situation of the parents [ 4 ] To assess the developments in the parents’ situation, it is appropriate to recall certain observations appearing in previous orders: [2] March 27, 2009 judgment [12] . . . The mother was found to have a very weak profile and a mild intellectual impairment. Hence, her functioning is limited and she must be constantly supervised . Although her emotional bond with her children is valid, Ms.

A seems unable to understand their reactions and meet their needs without assistance. . . .

[14] The father’s personality is marked by aggressiveness and he probably has an untreated attention deficit disorder. He needs to be in control and strongly resists all change . November 4, 2010 judgment [ 10] Ms. A is now receiving support from an educator with the Centre de réadaptation de l’Ouest de Montréal (CROM) and from a CLSC worker. With concrete help, she is managing to improve her capacities and more adequately stimulate the children. [11] At the time of the hearing, she was receiving more than 10 hours of specialized services per week.

Her efforts and determination are remarkable, but, at the same time, indicative of her huge need for support. . . . [19] With the help of the CROM educator, the mother seems to understand the importance of her role. She is putting into practice the means proposed, including the constant stimulation her daughter needs. [21] So, with a great deal of support , the child can continue to live with her parents.

November 14, 2012 judgment [6] Overall, the parents adequately assume their parental responsibilities, as they accept the significant number of services they receive (CLSC, CROM and DYP) . [ 7] After much hesitation, the father finally agreed to work on his cannabis problem. He has completed a program at Foster Pavilion and is now taking

part in follow-up with the CLSC Parc Extension. [8] As for the mother, she still cooperates with all the caseworkers. However, it was regularly noted that, should she be left to her own devices, she would be unable to assume responsibility for her children . [9] Essentially, the Director recommended that the current measures be continued for the coming year. However, everything indicates that the services will be necessary in the long term.

Although there is reason to be optimistic about the parents’ ability to assume responsibility for their two youngest children, expecting them to do so without specialized assistance would be unrealistic . (Emphasis added.) [ 5 ] What is the present situation? [ 6 ] The parents no longer receive support from the CROM. [ 7 ] The father uses cannabis regularly and does not want professional support to help him stop. [ 8 ] The spousal relationship is marked by conflicts. The latest separation dates from less than a month ago.

The financial problems remain. [ 9 ] A number of assistance services have been interrupted because the family home is infested with bedbugs. This situation has lasted more than six months. To date, the parents have not notified their landlord or hired an exterminator. [ 10 ] The father’s testimony is revealing of his great distress. He seems depressed and in bad shape. He gesticulates all the time. He does not have faith in the assistance measures offered.

He makes certain commitments half-heartedly, without really showing conviction. [ 11 ] While X and Y have made undeniable progress during their placements, this is not the case of their parents.

[ 12 ] Their problems are recurrent, even overwhelming. There is every reason to believe that their ability to improve is simply insufficient. Their distress is palpable, proportionate to their attachment to their children. [ 13 ] Despite the sympathy they arouse, the Court can only find that they are not able to assume responsibility for their daughters. X’s situation [ 14 ] Before her placement in the rehabilitation centre, X had lived with C for six years. [ 15 ] She was placed in May 2014 because she displayed aggressive, self-destructive and sexualized behaviour.

Moreover, her relationship with C worried the Director. [ 16 ] Ms. C resisted the assistance offered. [ 17 ] Since then, X has made enormous effort. Her progress is remarkable. She participates effectively in the [program A], and no longer displays sexualized behaviour. She also engages in art therapy once a week. [ 18 ] She is more mature. While she still has some problems at school, it is clear that she no longer needs the structure of a rehabilitation centre. [ 19 ] Moreover, she has maintained contact with C every weekend.

While it is not exhaustive, observation of the contact is encouraging. [ 20 ] The educators at the [group home A] and the present representative of the Director have managed to gain Ms. C’ trust, and the result has been a transparent, effective working relationship. [ 21 ] Ms. C no longer feels judged. She has a better understanding of the Director’s role and does not hesitate to ask for advice. [ 22 ] All of the parties admit that Ms. C is X’s psychological mother. If any doubt remained, their respective testimonies completely erase it.

The emotional bond is unambiguous. [ 23 ] After having stated that she was ready to take X immediately, Ms. C expressed some hesitation.

She is afraid of failure and prefers an additional six-month placement. [ 24 ] Nonetheless, in light of X’s real progress and C’ sensitivity and openness, the Director’s plan to find a foster family does not seem appropriate. [ 25 ] In keeping with the principles of sections 4 and 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act , the aim must be to promote the maintenance of the significant bonds between C and X, with a view to permanence. [ 26 ] Even if it means putting a little pressure on C and increasing the Director’s assistance, it is time to put an end to X’s institutional placement, and return to the initial course of action, with which, in fact, all the parties were in agreement not so long ago.

Y’s situation [ 27 ] When she was placed in the rehabilitation centre in May 2013, Y was a neglected child. She was no longer working at school and she was increasingly parentified; she was managing the conflicts between her parents. She even said she no longer wanted to live. [ 28 ] Since then, she has demonstrated impressive strength. With the help of her therapist, she has found a balance that allows her to calm down and be available to learn at school. She is a resilient child, able to make progress and adapt. [ 29 ] A little more than a year ago, the Director found a foster family wishing to receive her.

Regular contact was established in a very gradual manner. [ 30 ] While there are times when we regret the length of judicial processes, in this case the delays have allowed Y to become integrated gently, almost without noticing it. [ 31 ] The foster family is aware of the strong bond between the child and her parents, and agrees to respect it, which it has already been doing for several months. [ 32 ] Y is ready to leave the rehabilitation centre. The spirit of the law requires putting an end to her placement in an institution, since hers has far exceeded the maximum period of placement under

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act . Discussion [ 33 ] All of the parties agree that the unquestionable emotional bond between the parents and their daughters must be maintained through regular contact.

A balance has to be found between the need for Y and X to become integrated into their respective foster environments and their need to continue to receive affection from their parents. [ 34 ] However, despite the pain that the present decision will cause, it is important to be clear: the children’s life plans will not involve returning to live with their parents. [ 35 ] For the short term, X will thus return to live with C. Y will go to live with the suggested foster family with the clear objective of preparing her to live there permanently.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still compromised; [ 37 ] CONCLUDES that the period of placement specified in

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act has expired and that it is not expected that the children will be returned to their family in the short term; [ 38 ] RENDERS an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care and stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the children’s needs and age on a permanent basis; Concerning Y [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS Y to a rehabilitation center until June 24, 2016 ; [ 40 ] As of June 24 , entrusts Y to a foster family; [ 41 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director has chosen the family of D; [ 42 ] ORDERS the Director to ensure that Y continues her therapeutic process with Suzann Ward; [ 43 ] ORDERS that contacts between Y and her parents take place following modalities to be established by the Director at a frequency of once a week for a minimum of 3 consecutive hours; [ 44 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to Y and her parents; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE until January 30, 2017; Concerning X [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS X to a rehabilitation center until August 26, 2016 ; [ 47 ] As of August 26 , entrusts X to C; [ 48 ] ORDERS that until August 26, contacts between the child and C be at least every weekend; [ 49 ] ORDERS that contacts between X and her parents take place following modalities to be established by the Director at a minimum of once every two weeks; [ 50 ] ORDERS the Director to ensure that X continues her therapeutic process for as long as needed; [ 51 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to X and he parents, including the services of an educator for as long as needed; [ 52 ] THE WHOLE until X’s majority.

Signed in Town A, June 13, 2016 ___________________________________ PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for DYP

Me Anna Colarusso Attorney for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Me Judith Shapiro Knight Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: December 10, 2015, May 13 and 16, 2016 [1] WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A. ).