2012 QCCQ 17004, 2012 QCCQ 17004

Protection de la jeunesse — 126182 2012 QCCQ 17004 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] N°: 525-41-025672-122 DATE: December 19, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2010 - and - A - and - B (deceased) Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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. [sections 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of December 19, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of an order rendered by the honourable Jean Gravel on November 30, 2011, ordering that the child be entrusted to his paternal grandmother, Ms.

C, until March 16, 2012, and that the family be provided with a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child is doing well in the care of the paternal grandmother; • On January 19, 2012, le Centre jeunesse A transferred the child’s file of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, as the mother moved to Town A; • Since the last court order, the mother’s contacts with the child have continued to be sporadic, even though the visits were always encouraged; • The mother did not see the child at all during the month of January 2012; • On February 16, 2012, it was agreed that the mother would have bi-weekly visits with the child and that she would contact the paternal grandmother in advance to set up a date for each visit; • Despite this agreement, the mother would either contact the paternal grandmother on the same day that she wanted her visits or she would not contact her at all to set up a date for her visits; • The mother’s behaviour sometimes appears as unstable; • The mother has not been collaborative and transparent with the Centre jeunesse A nor with Batshaw Youth and Family Centres;

• The mother continues to need help to improve her parenting skills. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to his grandmother’s care for a period of one year and that the family be provided with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 5 ] The mother consents for X to be maintained in the care of his paternal grandmother for a period of one year. The mother states that she is currently living with friends, but that she will soon get her own apartment. She says that the youth worker can reach her on her cell phone. She is currently working three days a week as a barmaid.

The mother says she agrees to participate in individual counselling, but has found it hard to find an appropriate program. As for the contacts with her son, the mother says that she finds it difficult to see him cry when she leaves and that once a week is not sufficient to maintain a bond. The mother wishes to regain custody of her son. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in X’s best interest.

Me Lavigueur states that she is concerned about D, the grandmother’s son, living in the home, as the prognosis of his treating psychiatrist is reserved. Me Lavigueur says it would be preferable if the uncle reintegrated the grandmother's home in three months time. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mr. [Social Worker 1], human relations’ agent, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. [ 8 ] The parental capacity assessment of the mother was done by Niki Saros, psychologist, in May 2012.

The psychologist states that the mother’s attitude during the parental capacity evaluation vacillated between cooperation and indignation. During the parental observation, X appeared to be a physically well developed child. The mother passively related to X in the absence of initiating play or encouraging any form of verbal dialogue. She occasionally demonstrated physical affection towards the child by holding him in her arms and kissing him, though in a manner that seemed more appropriate for an infant than an emerging toddler. The child recognized Ms.

A as his mother and identified her as such. [ 9 ] The mother passed the WAIS-IV an adult intelligence test comprised of 10 core subtests. According to the results obtained, the mother’s global level of intellectual functioning was estimated to be in the extremely low range, one percentile.

Her verbal comprehension abilities were in the lower limits of the borderline range, her perceptual reasoning abilities were in the mid limits of the borderline range and her working memory and processing speed were both in the extremely low range. [ 10 ] As far as the mother’s adaptive behaviour, according to self-report ratings, her global level adapting functioning was estimated in the average range.

On the self-report responses provided by the mother to the NEO-PI-3 personality questionnaire, she scored high for depression, vulnerability, aesthetics and order and low for trust compliance, modesty and deliberation. [ 11 ] The psychologist writes that the mother’s level of cognitive functioning has negatively impinged on her parenting behaviour but does not exclusively account for her lack of parental initiative.

She has shown poor judgment, difficulty with planning and lack of self- awareness. [ 12 ] The psychologist concludes that there has been little change in the mother’s circumstances since the involvement of DYP. The mother continues to be in need of professional support to assist her with decision-making and mobilizing resources to improve her parenting behaviour.

She has demonstrated little collaboration, low motivation to follow through with the recommendations and has not utilized community or professional resources to make positive changes to her personal and family situation. [ 13 ] The psychologist recommends to explore options for a long term and permanent plan to provide X with the possibility of developing a stable primary attachment. A developmental evaluation to assess the child's global functioning, particularly in the area speech and language.

To pursue drug testing to determine the contribution of possible substance abuse to the mother’s current problem and to provide her with individual counselling. [ 14 ] The parental capacity assessment of the paternal grandmother, Ms. C, was also conducted by Dr Niki Saros, in November 2012. The grandmother is a fifty five year old woman, who speaks English and is of Baptist faith. She has a college degree and completed additional studies in real estate.

She had two children, B, X’s father, who died tragically in a car accident on Father’s Day, two years ago, and D, her other son, who had a difficult adolescence and has been diagnosed with a Schizoaffective Disorder. [ 15 ] Ms. C's self-report ratings on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, MMPI-2, personality questionnaire resulted in elevated scores on the validity scales. However, there was a pattern of exaggerating positive attributes. There were not apparent markers for any major pathology. The scores on the Parenting Stress Index-4 indicate that Ms.

C is not experiencing parent stress in relation to X. [ 16 ] The psychologist concludes that Ms. C's parenting capacity is favourable. She has been the sole consistent primary caregiver in X’s life since birth and is an affectionate and nurturing parenting figure. [ 17 ] The psychologist recommends that Ms.

C receive counselling from Batshaw to support her to manage stressors and losses and that an educator be provided to help her manage X’s tantrums, help him to adjust to transitions and reducing his separation anxiety. [ 18 ] There are concerns surrounding the behaviours of the child’s uncle, D, who lives with his mother Ms. C is currently under an order of the Tribunal administratif du Québec. Mr. D’s treating psychiatrist, Dr.

Daniel Solonyna, writes the following in his letter: In response to your request for additional information about the above person please note that I am his Outpatient Psychiatrist since Oct. 29, 2012. I also met with him briefly on Dec 10, 2012. As you know he is under the supervision of the Tribunal Administratif du Québec. Prior to our initial meeting Mr D was assessed at l’Institut A. During our two meetings Mr D focused his questions on repeatedly asking that I stop his injectable antipsychotic medication which he receives every two weeks. He would like to take the oral form of the same medication.

He did not show any introspection about the threats he had made to one of our staff nor the long history of aggressive behaviours to others for which he is known since his pre- teenage years. The mental health workers who know him well have given feedback to me that he is “better” and more appropriate with

others since he has been receiving the injections. Indeed clinically he does not appear to have any acute psychotic symptoms. Please note that over the years no one has been yet able to identify the precipitants of his aggressive behaviours toward others. They appear to have an impulsive character to them. Nevertheless, I retain for the moment the diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder or Delusional Disorder, paranoid type as noted in his chart. In the future this may change. I did not change his treatment.

Please note that our clinic advises patients to come within 24-48 hours if they have missed their injection and if they do not come within that time period the Police is advised to bring the patient to the clinic for the injection. As he does not question the years of aggressive behaviour that he has shown nor express the wish for therapy to help him with this issued my prognosis is reserved at this time. He may most certainly behave inappropriately toward younger individuals as well as adults. [ 19 ] Mr. [Social Worker 1], the youth worker, testifies that X is doing well in Ms. C’s care.

He has no concerns with D living in the home, as long as he is supervised when in contact with the child by Ms. C or a third party approved by DYP. These contacts could change following other recommendations by Mr D's treating professionals. [ 20 ] As for the child, he is still showing signs of an attachment disorder, but has known many losses since birth. Furthermore, the mother not being consistent with her visits, has been difficult for the child.

Permanency planning for the child has been discussed and DYP will be examining the possibility for X to be entrusted to his grandmother on a long term basis, if the mother is not in a position to regain custody of her son. [ 21 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s difficulties and life style are not compatible with caring for her son on a full time basis.

The mother will need to improve her parenting skills and collaborate with DYP if she wishes to regain custody of her son or be granted extended visits. [ 22 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his paternal grandmother’s care for a period of one year, with a social follow-up for the same period. A development assessment of the child will be necessary in order to ensure that all his needs are met.

Furthermore, the grandmother will need to collaborate with DYP and inform the youth worker of any difficulties in the home or with her son D. [ 23 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 24 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X ; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to his paternal grandmother’s care, Ms.

C for a period of one year; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by DYP, including supervision if deemed necessary, after discussion with the mother; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts between the child and his mother be encouraged; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child not exposed to any person using or under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother submit to random drug testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother's consent to do so; [ 32 ] ORDERS the mother to follow the recommendations of her parental capacity assessment; [ 33 ] ORDERS the mother to inform DYP of the steps taken to address her situation and to inform DYP of her whereabouts; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that Ms.

C follow the recommendations of her parental capacity assessment; [ 35 ] ORDERS that an educator be provided to help the grandmother manage the child’s behaviours, for as long as deemed necessary; [ 36 ] ORDERS that Ms. C inform the youth workers if D is not adhering to his treatment plan; [ 37 ] ORDERS that all contacts between the child and D be supervised by Ms. C or a third party approved by DYP; [ 38 ] ORDERS Ms.

C to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his situation and more particularly, ORDERS a development assessment for the child and that all recommendations made by the treating professionals be followed; [ 40 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed December 21, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marie José Lavigueur Counsel for the child Me James Cocciardi Counsel for the paternal grandmother Date of hearing: May 14, September 14 and December 19, 2012