2021 QCCQ 16750, 2021 QCCQ 16750

Protection de la jeunesse — 219473 2021 QCCQ 16750 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-005312-089 DATE : December 20, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2007 Child -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMEN T Section 95(1) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] The child is 14 years old. She is entrusted to her grant aunt, Mrs. C, with her brother Y, until her majority, according to the last order rendered on April 4, 2013. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with an application for revision of the last decision. [ 3 ] The Director, also petitions the Court with applications for revision in the matter of the child’s sibling Z and Y .

The parties agree to a joint hearing. [ 4 ] The Director alleges that there is no longer an agreement between the parties concerning the visits and that the children’s needs require that their visits with the mother be supervised. Is also alleged that the grandmother can lack transparency and that frequent interventions are needed by the Director. [ 5 ] The mother disagrees with the supervision of the contacts with her children. She wishes to have them over at her house once every two weeks. [ 6 ] X ’s father is not present but duly notified. The Court authorizes the Director to procced in his absence.

He is not involved. [ 7 ] The grandmother, party in the case of Z agrees with the recommendations. [ 8 ] The children are satisfied with the visits. They do not want the visits to be unsupervised. They see their mother once every two weeks except for Z who sees her once a week. QUESTION AT ISSUE [ 9 ] Is it in the best interest of the children that the contacts with the mother be supervised? THE EVIDENCE

[ 10 ] Since the last Court orders, the children remained in their respective foster homes. All are entrusted to the care of members of their extended families until their respective majority, namely the grandmother for Z and the great aunt for X and Y . X [ 11 ] X is developing well in her foster home and is clearly attached to her caregiver.

In her daily life, she functions generally well. [ 12 ] However, she was diagnosed with an attachment disorder in her early years and, to this day, it still has a significant impact on her life. [ 13 ] During some visits, the mother can express some hate animosity towards her child’s caregiver. X is aware that her mother is vulnerable but is also in the middle of a loyalty conflict. The mother ‘s behaviour and attitude affect the child in such a way that they can disturb her normal functioning if the contacts are not of a positive nature.

She can feel miserable and distressed for days. [ 14 ] She has made a request to receive psychological help. A psychologist has been assigned to her and the follow-up should start soon. Y [ 15 ] He child has been living with his great aunt since he was a baby and she represents the most important parental figure in his life. He evolves positively under her care. [ 16 ] He is not interested much in going to visits with his mother, but he enjoys seeing his siblings, especially D.

He used to have aggressive outbursts and anger but since the visits are in a neutral and supervised environment, he is more appeased and rarely exhibits aggressivity. [ 17 ] He has expressed the need to learn to deal with his emotions and attends anger-management workshops. Z [ 18 ] The child was diagnosed with encopresis and enuresis and must wear a diaper and take daily medication since. She has regular follow-ups from her family doctor and from a specialist at Ste-Justine. [ 19 ] The grandmother can avoid or forget to give the medication.

The child is starting to demonstrate serious behavioural disturbances, especially in school. She also has ran away a few times from home. [ 20 ] The child’s medical challenges have an impact on her relational and emotional availability. In school, she is rejected by her peers. [ 21 ] To help improve the situation, an educator is involved in her situation since June 2020. [ 22 ] The child is also in a conflict of loyalty between family members and the Director. For example, she had to lie about seeing her mother without the presence of a caseworker. This puts her in an uncomfortable position.

Visits and situation of the mother [ 23 ] Since November 2017, the visits between the mother and her children take place in the Director’s office, under its supervision. [ 24 ] Until December 2020, the mother’s attendance is inconsistent. When she shows up for the contacts, her participation, in terms or organization, is not optimal. [ 25 ] She is less available psychologically because of personal difficulties and she can sometimes stare blankly into space.

She can also get verbally aggressive towards people who are not there but who she perceives in her mind’s eye, in front of the children, which can scare them. [ 26 ] In March 2021, she understands the need for supervision and agrees to sign an agreement with the Director wherein are stated the behaviours to improve during the visits. [ 27 ] After that, she shows more consistency and asks support from the caseworkers. [ 28 ] The mother was living in an intermediate resource with support from caseworkers. Unfortunately, she was evicted in August 2021.

In her testimony, she explains that she has made some positive changes in her life.

For now, she rents a room while awaiting low- cost housing. [ 29 ] During the visits, conflicts can arise between the mother and the grandmother, but also between the grandmother and the great aunt. [ 30 ] On August 30, 2021, the Court orders, on a provisional basis, that the visits be supervised at a frequency of once a week for Z and once every two weeks for the others. [ 31 ] The caseworker observes that the mother is more available since the contacts are planned and supervised by the Director. [ 32 ] The children still fear that conflicts can erupt and feel that a neutral person can help calm down their mother. [ 33 ] The Court shares the Director’s clinical analysis [1] :

(…) The objective of the contacts between the mother and her children is to maintain kinship bonds. It is important to take in consideration the mother’s limitations; therefore we do not do parental coaching, we simply support the mother to have positive contacts with her children. It is challenging for the mother to discipline the children, and there are always two caseworkers present at the family visits considering the complexity of the situation. It is challenging to answer to the four children’s needs in one meeting considering their age.

The mother has been working on her transparency with the caseworkers and slowly developing trust. It has been noted that the mother is doing an effort in being honest and sharing her personal mental health struggles with the caseworkers. However, it is inconsistent because sometimes Ms. A will open up about her thoughts, hallucinations and nightmares and on the other hand, sometimes she will deny them completely. It is also difficult to follow Ms. A because sometimes she agrees with the supervision and recognizes the motives and other times she will not understand and complain about us supervising.

The mother and the maternal grand-mother, until recently, used to have short contacts between them and the children without our knowledge and authorization, therefore, without a supervisor as agreed. They both continue to question why we do not authorize the grandmother to supervise despite our explanations. A neutral environment was needed to ensure that the children would not be exposed to conflicts between the adults and we have seen some improvement (notably in Y’s behaviour) since the visits take place in our office and are supervised by a caseworker. [ 34 ] Y and X wish to have some visits with D and Z .

The grandmother would be open to have them at her house. The relationship between the two foster car families is conflictual. The Director proposed a meeting to work things out. DECISION [ 35 ] The supervised visits with the mother are in the children’s best interest. It corresponds to their needs and wishes because they take place in a neutral, predictable, and safe environment.

To change the modalities would only be in the mother’s interest. [ 36 ] Each child has different needs and the Director must ensure an intensive social follow up to make sure that they get proper services. [ 37 ] Regarding the situation of the grandmother, the Court will not maintain the order of protection until the majority of Z . Several services are in place and still, there is only little progress. The child must be in a safe and secure environment.

If the situation does not improve significantly over the next year, an alternative life plan for the children will have to be considered. [ 38 ] After having received the admissions, taken into consideration the reports produced and the testimonies heard, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are still in danger and that the situation gives rise to the measures sought.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the application; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 41 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on April 4, 2013; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster care family of C; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 44 ] AUTHORIZES that the supervision be lifted following agreement between the parties; [ 45 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the contacts are actually once each two weeks; [ 46 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director doesn’t agree that the maternal grandmother supervise the contacts; [ 47 ] FORBIDS the contacts between the child and her father; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures ordered; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 50 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the father and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign alone the authorizations required for school, recreational, extracurricular or travel purposes, including the application for a passport and the renewal of driving lessons and driver’s licence; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts be encouraged between the sibling; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the grandmother and the grand aunt participate in mediation sessions; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services, namely a psychological follow up and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the psychologist is already assigned to the child; [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 55 ] THE WHOLE until her majority on [...], 2025.

__________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q. Me Véronique Crête Attorney for the DYP Me Hélène Robitaille Attorney for the child Me Kathleen O’Meara Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : December 20, 2021 Judgment signed on : February 22, 2022