2020 QCCQ 12224, 2020 QCCQ 12224

Protection de la jeunesse — 208593 2020 QCCQ 12224 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-031905-169 DATE: September 16, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2011 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on September 16, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered on December 16, 2019. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that contacts between the child and the mother be suspended until she presents a clear plan on how she intends to be part of the child’s live (including her living arrangements), and after the child’s treating professionals confirms that it is in the child’s best interest.

The Director also recommends that the child remains placed in a foster family and that diverse support measures be ordered until his age of majority. [ 4 ] The mother is absent. She requested the hearing’s postponement, which was denied. [ 5 ] The child’s attorney recommends that contacts be suspended until the mother participates in five consecutive social follow-up meetings with the Youth Protection worker.

Questions in litigation [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? [ 7 ] Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to delegate the decision regarding suspension of contacts to the Youth Protection worker and the treating professionals working with the child? [ 8 ] Does the evidence support a suspension of contacts between the child and the mother? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child has remained entrusted to the foster family of Ms. B and Mr.

C. [ 10 ] In January 2020, the mother informed the Youth Protection worker that she was planning to move to [Country A] and that she no longer wanted contact with the child. The order of placement until the age of majority was difficult for her emotionally.

[ 11 ] On January 22, 2020, a visit was organized between the child and the mother so she could explained her plans to her son and the fact that she would not have contact with him for the near future.

The mother had no clear answer as to how long she would be away. [ 12 ] Following that visit, X became distracted and unable to focus in school and in the foster home. [ 13 ] On January 28, 2020, the maternal grandmother confirmed to the Youth Protection worker that the mother had left for [Country A] on that day. [ 14 ] On January 29, 2020 the mother informed the Youth Protection worker that she had not left Town A as her plans did not work out. It was still possible for her to leave in the next month.

She did not request any contact with the child. [ 15 ] On the same date the child’s therapist made the following recommendations regarding contacts between him and the mother: (the therapist) did not feel it is necessary, even by telephone, for several reasons that follow, in no particular order: She does not see a benefit to either child, but acknowledges it would be more self-serving for (the mother).

The mother cannot prove she is a healthier version of herself from contact to contact and the boys should not chance being traumatized again in any way from something that is said which could trigger a negative response or by a missed call. [1] [ 16 ] On February 18, 2020, the mother requested that visits be reinstated.

She reported that she was in a better state and requested to resume visits once per week and phone calls twice per week. [ 17 ] This request was made as if nothing had happened… [ 18 ] Clearly, the mother did not understand that her decisions and actions had an important impact on the child. [ 19 ] On February 21, 2020, the Tribunal suspended contacts between the mother and the child until the mother presents a clear plan on how she intends to be a part of the child’s live, including her living arrangements, as well as the child’s psychologist indicating that resuming contacts is in the child’s best interest. [ 20 ] Following the Court hearing, the Youth Protection worker tried to reach the mother but to no avail.

On March 17, the maternal grandmother informed the Youth Protection worker that the mother was no longer in Town A. She did not know where she was. [ 21 ] On March 23, 2020, the mother informed the Director, through email, that she has been living in [Country A] for the past 2 weeks and that she was intending to stay there. [ 22 ] On May 13, 2020, due to exceptional circumstances linked with the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing had to be postponed. [ 23 ] On June 5, 2020, the mother sent a disturbing email to the Youth Protection worker, explaining why she did not want her child to receive medication.

She referred the Youth Protection worker to the foster mother. [ 24 ] The child seems to have been able to address his feelings with regards to the suspension of contact with his mother. [ 25 ] On July 2 nd 2020, the Director of Youth Protection received a new signalement as X disclosed that his putative father (Mr.

D) had touched his private parts in the past. X also reported that Mr. D had sexually abused his brother Y. Y did not remember the alleged facts. [ 26 ] On August 4, 2020, when reached regarding this new signalement, the mother confirmed that she was still in [Country A]. She denied the facts reported by X. [ 27 ] The children lived with Mr. D for a short period of time in 2016. He now resides in [Country A]. As the children reside in a foster family until their age of majority; as they do not have any contact with Mr.

D and as they receive the proper care, the Director considered that the reported facts were founded but that their security or development was not compromise due to the reported abuse. [ 28 ] Dr. Shahmila Amadi, psychologist assessed and diagnosed the child with ADHD, Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Conduct Disorder. It was also identified that X had Specific Leaning Disorder in written expression, reading and mathematics. [ 29 ] At this point, the child psychological follow-up has been cut short.

A referral was made for the child to continue to be psychologically supported. [ 30 ] In matters of Youth Protection, the Court of Quebec’s jurisdiction is limited by the Youth Protection Act . The law does not permit a judge to delegate his jurisdiction and discretion to other individuals and organizations (Youth Protection worker and treating professionals working with the child). [ 31 ] The evidence presented today supports a suspension of contact between the child and the mother.

If significant new facts arise, all parties, including the mother, will have the opportunity to seize Court and ask for a revision of the present order. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 34 ] REVISES the order rendered on December 16, 2019;

[ 35 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the foster family of Ms. B and Mr. C; [ 36 ] SUSPENDS contacts between the child and his mother; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child not come in contact with Mr. D and his brother, E; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the recommendations stemming from the child’s psychoeducational evaluation be followed; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the recommendations set forth in the evaluation completed for the child by Dr.

Shahmila Amadi be followed; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations laid out in the parental capacity assessment completed by Mr. [Social worker 3] and report to the Director of Youth Protection as to her progress; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the medical and health needs of the child be met in a timely manner, especially those pertaining to the child’s cochlear implants; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child be enabled to maintain his Jewish identity, more particularly by participating in a cultural appropriate Jewish Camp program during the summer and school vacations; [ 43 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of attributes of parental authority pertaining to education, religious activities and cultural heritage, health, extra-curricular activities, obtaining a driver’s license, travel (including obtaining a passport), obtaining a social insurance number and GRANTS the exercise of those attributes to both foster parents; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE until the child’s age of majority; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on October 1 st , 2020 /cd Mtre Christine Waldvogel Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the child Mtre Marc Castonguay Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 16, 2020