2019 QCCQ 18846, 2019 QCCQ 18846

Protection de la jeunesse — 197867 2019 QCCQ 18846 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 455-41-001185-180; 455-41-001186-188 DATE: October 17, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF: X Born on […], 2015 Y Born on […], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A Applicant v.

A The mother -and- B The father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court order rendered on January 11, 2019. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared that the security and development of X and Y were in danger for the motives of physical neglect, healthcare neglect and educational neglect.

For Y only, she also invokes a situation of psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and development of the children are still compromised for the same motives. [ 4 ] Because of the alleged new facts, the Director recommends that the protective measures be revised in order to entrust the children to a foster family, that Y be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre as soon as a place becomes available, to authorize supervised contact between the children and their parents, to order that both children receive specific healthcare and health services required by their situation and that a social follow-up be provided for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother is present and represented.

She agrees to the conclusions but stresses that her children’s situation has not evolved and regrets that there is still no diagnosis for their difficulties. [ 6 ] The father is also present and represented. He contests the Director’s petition and asks for the children’s return to his care. [ 7 ] Both parents contest the supervision of their contacts. [ 8 ] The children’s lawyer is in agreement with the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 9 ] The Court considers that the father’s parental capacities are not sufficient to care for the children.

As for the supervision of the contacts, the Court finds that the order should be different for each child for the following motives. Question in litigation [ 10 ] Is the father able to care for the children at this time?

[ 11 ] What should be the modalities of contacts between the parents and the children? evolution of the situation The Children [ 12 ] X is now 4 years old. He exhibits important developmental delays in the areas of motor skills, intellectual and language spheres. [ 13 ] He also presents with traits of autism (Autistic Spectrum Disorder, ASD) for which his pediatrician had prescribed an evaluation in 2018. [ 14 ] To this day, X has not been assessed.

Although he is still on a waiting list, he is about to receive services from the CRDI. [ 15 ] He has started attending a new daycare centre in August 2019, as the previous one refused to keep him as of March 2019 because of his difficulties. [ 16 ] Nonetheless, he had been thriving in his foster home until September 20, 2019 when he was moved to another foster home. [ 17 ] Indeed, there was a report deemed founded to the effect that the foster parent had used unreasonable methods of upbringing on Y. [ 18 ] Y is 5 years old and also exhibiting serious delays in many developmental spheres. [ 19 ] She was evaluated as being in the first percentile for her comprehension of concept and instruction and in the second percentile for her vocabulary.

There is a possibility that she suffers from a language difficulty called Dyspraxia. [ 20 ] She and her brother seem to have low boundaries, are friendly to strangers and make no difference in their attachment from one adult to another. [ 21 ] She also has serious behavioural issues both at home and at school. She is subject to frequent and intense tantrums which are hard to contain.

She can spit, hit, scream, refuse to listen and make animal noises. [ 22 ] The professionals involved were not able to find the origin of her behavioural and developmental difficulties. [ 23 ] The first hypothesis of ASD (Autism) has been discarded. Her pediatrician explored possibilities of ADHD, intellectual disability and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. [ 24 ] Medication for ADHD has been tried and has made no difference.

In fact, she was kicked out of school before the end of the last school year for behavioural issues, nonetheless. [ 25 ] Y is waiting to be psychologically assessed regarding her affective and intellectual development. [ 26 ] The Director’s hypothesis is that her reactions come from an important delay in her affective and cognitive development because of the lack of affection, stimulation and attention. [ 27 ] Y was seen by Dr Livernoche of the pediatric team at the CHU[A].

He declared that the child did not require a diagnosis and that she only needed for her language and behaviour to be worked on and to be sent to school to work on her social skills. [ 28 ] Since her first placement in January 2019, she has been through 3 different foster homes. [ 29 ] The Director is of the opinion that she needs a neutral living environment that will be able to work with her intensely. [ 30 ] A plan to integrate Y to a rehabilitation centre unit dedicated to children with serious attachment issues is presented. This resource would be able to help the child in a way that no foster home could.

The parents [ 31 ] The mother started to attend the parenting group “A” in the winter of 2019. [ 32 ] After a few sessions, she stopped attending, claiming that groups were not for her. She felt uncomfortable expressing herself and taking her place in front of all these people. [ 33 ] Further inquiry about her personal history revealed that she has been under the control of her family, mostly her father, which prevents her to make her own choices including regarding her children. [ 34 ] Concerning her social anxiety disorder, she claims it is under control and stopped her medication on her own.

She has not consulted with her doctor about this. [ 35 ] The father completed his attendance to the first session of “Better Together”. [ 36 ] He claims that his physical health has much improved but offers no medical evidence to this effect. [ 37 ] His health problems caused him great pain for which he has been taking medication that causes him confusion and loss of memory. [ 38 ] He has a diagnosis of anxiety which is apparent when exercising his parental role.

[ 39 ] He took the steps to be evaluated for ASD as he says he shows traits of it that he also recognizes in X. [ 40 ] Both parents collaborated with the social follow-up although their level of recognition of the situation of compromission is still difficult to attain. [ 41 ] In fact, the father is in denial and still tries to justify or explain the delays in his children with external factors. [ 42 ] They still show difficulties in understanding and responding to the children’s needs in their own individual way. [ 43 ] They are both in a precarious financial situation. [ 44 ] And now, they are expecting a new child, although they do not form a couple and are not living together. [ 45 ] In fact, they have both recently moved.

The father had to move, because he was subject to vandalism in his apartment. The mother took his old apartment. The father explains that it was him who was targeted by the mischiefs and not the house.

Contacts [ 46 ] At the beginning of the follow-up, the children had sleepovers during their contacts and they were reacting a lot after the visit, especially Y. [ 47 ] The contacts were then reduced and are now of 3 hours weekly, unsupervised. [ 48 ] The reaction of the parents was different, the mother wished for more time with the children but accepted the reduction if it was in their best interest. [ 49 ] The father never understood why the contacts were reduced and argues that the reactions are due to the children missing the parents. [ 50 ] The parents agreed to be observed by the worker during the first reduced contact. [ 51 ] The Director could observe that some interventions needed to be worked on but nothing to warrant a request for supervised contacts, especially that the parents agreed to be coached. [ 52 ] A calendar was set which included coaching for both parents.

The father has missed a few contacts due to lack of transport. [ 53 ] The father was observed during 3 contacts with X and 4 with Y. His interaction is better with X than with Y. He is able to communicate and play with his son and is now able to have him eat at his place. [ 54 ] With Y, he becomes anxious as the child misbehaves and odes not obey. He can also raise his voice when she has a fit. [ 55 ] The mother was observed for 6 contacts with X and 5 with Y. [ 56 ] She has difficulty with offering consistent structure and will still need to be coached in that sense.

The measures Entrustment [ 57 ] Both children started their life with a lot of neglect, especially Y who is deeply affected by this. [ 58 ] The little girl had been through 3 foster homes who were not able to cope with her behaviour. [ 59 ] The father, with his limitations to his parental capacities, would not be either. [ 60 ] Although he has recently started to take some steps to address his personal issues, there are no results as of yet that would indicate improvement of his parental abilities. [ 61 ] Y needs the specialized services of a rehabilitation centre and its neutral setting to help her improve in all aspects of her development. [ 62 ] In fact, the Court questions why this possibility has not been examined from the start by the Director as the little girl was already exhibiting serious behavioural issues related to educational neglect and attachment issues. [ 63 ] As for X, he has been improving in the foster home setting. [ 64 ] The ASD evaluation will certainly help to set specific services and also give tools to better deal with him. [ 65 ] Although the father has been reading about ASD and been applying some methods (very strict routine) to deal with his son, which seems to work out fine, it is not sufficient to care on a day-to-day basis for X. [ 66 ] During the present order, the Court invites the Director to examine thoroughly if there is a possibility of reintegration to the parents’ care and if there is to direct them to the appropriate services to improve their parental capacities.

Modalities of contacts

[ 67 ] The modalities of contacts must be different for each child as their condition and needs are not the same. [ 68 ] For Y, the contact with the parents must be supervised. [ 69 ] We are now trying, in a neutral setting, to help Y improve so we must also offer a neutral and framed setting for her to meet her parents in order not to undo the work that will be done in the centre. [ 70 ] Furthermore, the Court does not feel that the parents are equipped to deal with her behavioural issues in a way that will help her improve. [ 71 ] For X, he has not shown any reactions to the contact with his parents and has been doing well. [ 72 ] The father has found a way to interact with his son and the evaluation will give him more tips on how to care for X when he is with him. [ 73 ] The evidence has not shown indications that supervision for a short period of time (3 hours per week) is necessary in his case, considering that both parents agree to continue to be observed and receive coaching.

Conclusion [ 74 ] The present order will be decisive in assessing a possible return to the parents’ care. [ 75 ] The Court expects the Director to have a better understanding of Y’s situation and hopes that the CRDI will have evaluated X. [ 76 ] The Court considers a period of 6 months is adequate for the Director to have a clearer view of the orientation for these children.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on January 11 th , 2019 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the children X and Y to a foster family to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; ENTRUSTS the child Y to a rehabilitation centre as soon as a place becomes available; TAKES NOTICE that this rehabilitation centre will be [The Organism A]; AUTHORIZES , in the X’s favour, contact with his parents, according to the modalities set by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES , in Y’s favour, supervised contact with her parents, according to the modalities set by the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that the children and their parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered; ORDERS that the children receive specific healthcare and health services required by their situation; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

Me Andréanne Lacasse Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pascale Gauthier Attorney for the children Me Gilles Globensky Attorney for the mother Me Caroline Rosa Attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 17, 2019