2013 QCCQ 9938, 2013 QCCQ 9938

Protection de la jeunesse — 132761 2013 QCCQ 9938 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001532-123 DATE: February 22, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A C.Y.P.C. working in A Town Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in A Town, Quebec, A District Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in A Town, Quebec, A District Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 & 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X, born on […], 2001, declared endangered because he is the object of psychological ill-treatment and due to his serious behavioural disturbance. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the child are both present and each represented by their lawyer.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] The family is known by the Director of Youth Protection since 2009. In fact, on May 12, 2009, Roy J. declared that the security and the development of X were endangered due to neglect and unreasonable methods of upbringing used by the mother. Because of he mother's willingness to get help, Roy J. entrusted the child to the mother and ordered several measures among which aid, counsel and assistance to the family for one year.

Afterwards, the Director of Youth Protection received three other reports concerning the family, two that referred to psychological ill-treatment and unreasonable methods of upbringing that were considered founded. On each occasion, the cases were closed. [ 4 ] In December 2012, the Director of Youth Protection received another report concerning the family. This time, the Youth Protection services were informed that X was at school and refused to go back home and expressed suicidal thoughts.

The child also showed behavioural problems at school such as throwing temper tantrums and being very hostile towards teachers, workers from social services and from Youth Protection services. He even threatened to kill a teacher. [ 5 ] On December 6, 2012, the applicant accompanied X to his house but he refused to go inside the house. The mother clearly refused to talk to the applicant and demanded the return of her son at home. The applicant entrusted X to an aunt for the night to realize that he wasn't at school the next day.

The mother repeated to the applicant that she wanted nothing to do with Youth Protection workers. Consequently, she showed no openness to help her son in these moments of distress. [ 6 ] Afterwards, the parties signed a provisional agreement. During this period, the mother still demonstrated hostility towards the Youth Protection worker. Finally, three days before the hearing, the mother met with the applicant and accepted to cooperate with him. [ 7 ] Moreover, the evidence reveals that X doesn't appreciate the climate at home, as he is often yelled at for no reason.

The child's distress and the mother's rejection of her son's situation amounts to psychological ill-treatment in a context where the family problems are recurrent. The child's behaviour and reactions must be viewed in a wider perspective. They are a cry for help from a child living in an emotionally unstable environment. [ 8 ] The Court concludes that the security and development of X are endangered following paragraphs 38

c) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act.

APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 9 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months. The child agrees with this measure. As for the mother, she doesn't agree with the Director's recommendation but is willing to accept the Court's decision. On behalf of her client, the mother's attorney believes it is important to put into context the mother's attitude towards the Youth Protection services.

Her attorney underlines that the mother's situation was entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection as a child and that it is difficult to accept the services of the D.Y.P. as a parent. [ 10 ] Regarding the mother's poor cooperation, the applicant insists to say that he did everything in his power to raise her awareness of her son's suffering, to no avail until a few days ago. In support of his recommendation, he adds that the child is doing well in his foster family. In fact, the child's attitude is completely different from what it was before is placement.

According to the applicant, the child seems content and happy instead of withdrawn and aggressive. [ 11 ] The Court believes that the proposed measure is in the best interest of the child, as it must be viewed, by the mother, as an opportunity to work on herself in order to repair her relationship with her son and accept help in order to be more soothing and supportive as a parent. [ 12 ] While it is true the mother's cooperation with Youth Protection services remains to be confirmed, the Director of Youth Protection must show the professionalism and willingness to reach out to her.

Undoubtedly, the mother's personality presents many challenges but in the best interest of X, the D.Y.P must try to gain the mother's trust.

As for the latter, the Court understands the pain stemming from her past which included the involvement of the D.Y.P. in her life, but cannot allow her feelings to continue to jeopardize X's development. [ 13 ] In light of the foregoing, the Court strongly recommends that both the mother and the child undergo psychological assessments in order to address the question of attachment as well as to better understand the child's emotional functioning. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2001, are endangered pursuant to paragraphs 38

c) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be placed in a foster family for a period of six months; [ 18 ] ORDERS the mother to actively participate in applying the measures ordered; [ 19 ] ORDERS the mother to report periodically to the D.Y.P. on the measures applied in her own regard to put an end to the situation endangering the security and development of her child; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance for the child and the mother for a period of 12 months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised by the D.Y.P. as to frequency and modalities; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother undergoes a psychological assessment; [ 23 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Cassandra Neptune A Legal Aid Lawyer for the child M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: February 5, 2013