2017 QCCQ 18711, 2017 QCCQ 18711

Protection de la jeunesse — 179076 2017 QCCQ 18711 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-032033-169 DATE : May 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born on [...], 2007 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Mother B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is alleging that the child’s security and development are endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide appropriate supervision as well as a serious risk of negligence. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director submits that the mother’s instability and mental health issues prevent her from caring adequately for the child who has begun to display problematic behaviours. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the child be entrusted to the foster family of the maternal aunt along with other corrective measures for a year. [ 4 ] Although the mother is absent at the hearing, she admits the state of endangerment through her lawyer and consents to the recommendations. [ 5 ] The father is absent. [ 6 ] The lawyer representing the child is of the opinion that the Director’s recommendations best meet the child’s needs and interests.

The Context [ 7 ] The child was the subject of a voluntary measures agreement signed on May 2, 2016 as a result of the following concerns: - The mother has a long-standing issue with consumption of alcohol and drugs; - The mother has a history of relationships with abusive men; - The mother has mental health issues that interfere with her capacity to care for her children; - The mother has not been able to offer stable or consistent parenting to the child; - The mother has two other children currently placed in a proximity foster family as a result of the above-mentioned difficulties;

- The child is displaying aggressive and disruptive behaviour [1] . [ 8 ] The voluntary measures agreement provided for aid, counsel and assistance for nine months.

Additionally, the mother committed to undergoing a parental capacity assessment and to participating in individual therapeutic services. [ 9 ] During the first months of the intervention, the mother’s cooperation was inconsistent and she failed to follow through on her commitments for services concerning both herself and her daughter. [ 10 ] For example, the mother: - withdrew her request for her daughter’s participation in the Jewish General Hospital Day Treatment Program without justification; - refused to attend parenting classes in the summer of 2016; - failed to complete the parental capacity assessment. [ 11 ] During this time, the child’s behavioural problems at school persisted.

Behavioural assessments identified symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (ADHD) as well as Oppositional Defiant Disorder/Conduct Disorder with executive functioning difficulties [2] . Although the mother was encouraged to seek paediatric services to confirm and treat these suspected disorders, she neglected to do so. [ 12 ] In September 2016, the child began attending the SEEDS program (Securing Emotional Educational Development) at the [Elementary School A]. This program uses a developmental/nurturing approach.

The smaller number of students in the class allows for a more personalised service and some gains were observed with respect to the child’s behaviour. [ 13 ] In October 2016, the services of an educator were introduced into the home with the following objectives: - Teaching the child anger management; - Helping the mother establish a proper routine; - Strengthening the relationship between the child and her mother. [ 14 ] With respect to the child’s behaviour, the educator was of the opinion that the effectiveness of the intervention was limited by the lack of treatment for her suspected ADHD.

Consequently, progress was slow. The State of Endangerment [ 15 ] Prior to the end of the voluntary measures agreement, the Director retained a new signalement . This led to the application of emergency measures and to the placement of the child with her maternal aunt. The investigation of the signalement establishes the following: [ 16 ] On December 16, 2017 at approximately 6:48 p.m., the police responded to a call at the De L’Église metro station regarding an abandoned child.

Upon their arrival, the officers were directed to the child who explained that her mother, in a drunken and emotionally agitated state, left her at the metro station alone. A stranger noticed the child and offered assistance before calling the police. [ 17 ] The police attempted to reach the mother by phone but were unsuccessful. Although they were able to reach the mother’s boyfriend, he refused to provide information regarding the mother’s whereabouts despite being in her presence. [ 18 ] After consultation with the Director, the child was brought to her maternal aunt’s home.

It should be noted that the aunt is a foster family for the mother’s two other children. [ 19 ] The child has been in the aunt’s care since that day. Conclusion on the State of Endangerment [ 20 ] Since the beginning of the voluntary measures, the mother has been inconsistent in her participation with the intervention plan.

The nature of the incident leading to the signalement on December 16, 2016 is a clear indication that the mother’s personal difficulties are not only serious but have a direct impact on the child’s immediate security as well as her development. [ 21 ] Despite the services offered, the mother has failed to demonstrate any sincere desire to participate in therapy and her difficulties remain unchanged, thereby causing prejudice to the child’s development. [ 22 ] As a result, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are in danger for the motives alleged by the Director.

The Measures [ 23 ] Since being entrusted to her aunt, the child has had little contact with her mother who blames her for the current situation and tends to make hurtful comments to her as a result. For instance, the mother has since moved into a smaller apartment and has told the child that there’s no room for her. [ 24 ] The mother also affirms that she intends to move to Ontario and will not seek the return of the child to her care. Consequently,

she is not cooperating with social services. [ 25 ] Despite the circumstances, the child has thrived in her aunt’s home. Her behaviour has stabilized; she conforms to expectations and responds well to a structured routine. Although she continues to become oppositional when faced with consequences, the educator has assisted the aunt in implementing different techniques to deal with this issue. [ 26 ] At school, the staff has noticed that the child appears healthier and happier.

Her homework is done and her marks are on an upward trend. [ 27 ] Although concerns existed regarding the aunt’s ability to manage the four children under her care, an interim period of approximately four months has confirmed that she’s up to the task. [ 28 ] The Director is therefore proposing that the child remain entrusted to the foster family of the maternal aunt with other corrective measures. [ 29 ] The parties are all in agreement with the proposed measures. [ 30 ] The Court concludes that these measures are in the best interest of the child. [ 31 ] CONSIDERING that the child’s security and development were declared endangered on January 23, 2017 as a result of a serious risk of negligence as well as negligence by failing to provide adequate supervision; [ 32 ] THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster care of her maternal aunt C; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the frequency and the modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by agreements by the parties, failing which they shall be determined by the DYP; [ 36 ] PROHIBITS the mother from being in the presence of the child while under the influence of alcohol or drugs without a medical prescription; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother report back to the DYP as to her progress; [ 38 ] ORDERS the mother to provide her new address to the DYP; [ 39 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority in regards to education, medical, extracurricular activities, travel and passport; [ 40 ] ORDERS that C be granted with the exercise of certain attributes of the parental authority with regards to education, medical, extracurricular activities, travel and passport; [ 41 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share information with the professionals working with the family; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN CITY A On June 7, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Marc Morin Attorney for the child Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the mother

Date of hearing: May 11, 2017 KO/lf