r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 12644

Protection de la jeunesse — 165508 2016 QCCQ 12644 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004805-159 760-41-004804-152 DATE: May 2, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2011 Y, born [...], 2012 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] Context [ 2 ] On July 27, 2015, the Court renders a decision in the situation of the siblings X and Y, revising and extending for 6 months, various measures of protection in force in reason of physical and educational neglect. Namely, the Court entrusts the children to foster care while providing the supervision of their contacts with their parents.

The Court further allows contacts between the children and their maternal grandmother. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision and extension of this order, alleging that the children’s reactions surrounding their contacts with their parents justify that the Court review their situations. The Director recommends a new structure of contacts to include prohibiting the parent’s contacts with X and only allow contacts between Y and her mother. [ 4 ] The parents, although duly advised of the proceedings, are absent.

The mother is represented by attorney, who also signals not having any news from her client. In the children’s best interests, the Court proceeds on the merits of the motions. [ 5 ] In virtue of a legal mandate, the children’s attorney declares being in agreement with the Director’s proposed orientation. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] Since the last order, the children remain in foster care. [ 8 ] The children show attachment to their respective foster families and are well integrated. [ 9 ] The father is initially able to remain involved with the intervention, although his participation is inconsistent.

He is receptive to the advice and the services suggested, but is unable to put these in place. His personal situation remains unstable on numerous levels. [ 10 ] On August 3, 2015, the children see their father during a supervised visit and this, after more than a year of absence. They react well during the visit and both show affection to their father at its end. However, X then starts crying, breathing loudly and flapping her hands. Both children name not wanting to go back to their foster families. When the caseworker tries to comfort the children, the father reacts loudly is verbally aggressive.

[ 11 ] No further contacts are put in place in reason of the father’s unavailability, stemming from an incarceration and of failing to advise of his coordinates. [ 12 ] The mother continues to struggle with a myriad of personal issues which impact her parental capacities and ability to be available for her children. She has periods of homelessness and a generalized instability for which she fails to seek services. She can demonstrate extreme emotional reactions during her interactions with the caseworker as well as a lack of consistency in her involvement. She is hard to reach and rarely returns messages.

At the date of the hearing, the mother has given no news of her situation to either her own mother or the caseworker, for numerous months. [ 13 ] For all these reasons, it is not possible to realize any contacts between the children and their mother since the last order. The children have not seen their mother since May 2015. [ 14 ] The maternal grandmother also has contacts with the children, following agreement with the Director of Youth Protection. These contacts are positive and there is an affectionate bond.

Notwithstanding, both girls show reactions at the end of the contacts, not wanting to leave their grandmother. [ 15 ] The children’s continue to present behavioural difficulties, this situation being particularly intense in X’s case. [ 16 ] Both children talk about their past, to seeing their father hurt their mother and to their mother having ‘’bobos’’. They express not wanting to see their father on numerous occasions. [ 17 ] X is described as a child who constantly seeks attention and reassurance. She is reactive to separations and demonstrates obsessive behaviours as to food and cleanliness.

Increasingly, X has tantrums during which she is physically and verbally aggressive towards her foster family, a situation which intensifies surrounding contacts with her family. [ 18 ] Y also has behavioural reactions, although these are less intense. [ 19 ] The caseworker communicates with the parents to obtain their authorization to proceed to a psychological evaluation of the children, in view of better understanding their functioning and the source of their aggressive behaviours.

The mother readily gives her consent, but the father refuses verbalizing concerns as to possible negative perceptions of the psychologist as to his parental role. [ 20 ] In November, after she shows uncontrollable anger for a whole night, X is transported to the hospital for an emergency psychiatric intervention. Multiple referrals are made for psychological services. [ 21 ] More notably, a referral is made for a psychiatric assessment following this incident.

While diagnosing a Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder as well as problems with emotional regulation and anxiety, the said assessment offers the following clinical impression: X’s problems with emotional regulation are linked to failure of the environment to provide appropriate structure and handling. Tantrums can be precipitated by anxiety provoking situations. (Psychiatric Assessment, D-7 p. 3) [ 22 ] A further evaluation is made a few weeks later before the continuing deterioration of X’s behaviours.

At such time, the same psychiatrist mentions that her history is consistent with possible Post-Traumatic Syndrome Disorder symptoms ‘’ in the context of unsupported visits to biological family ”. There is a recommendation to review the structure of the contacts with her family. [ 23 ] Despite the protective measures in place, the parents lack of involvement and unstable personal situations result little changes occurring in regards to the rehabilitation of the situation of endangerment. [ 24 ] The father fails to seek services as to his violence and impulsivity.

This situation, in conjunction with his uneven participation in the intervention, justifies a prohibition of his contacts with his daughters as he is unavailable to work on dissipating their fears in regards to his violent behaviours, which are chronically present, even during his sole contact with them. [ 25 ] Although the mother is more collaborative, her personal issues remain as inhibiting as determined in the last judgment. [ 26 ] Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that the children continue to struggle with the traumas of their past and the unresolved issues stemming from their perceived abandonment by their parents.

Their increasingly difficult behaviours require that the measures put in place prioritize their stability and offer services to support them. [ 27 ] The Court endorses the measures sought by the Director as representing the best interests of the children. [ 28 ] For X, the extreme nature of her reactions is overwhelming her foster family and jeopardizing her placement. It is urgent that she receive services and further, be kept from situations which generate her anxiety, which the evidence demonstrates is related to her inability to adequately process her family history.

Such dictates the prohibition of contacts with her family environment for the time being. [ 29 ] As for Y, although her situation is also precarious, it is still possible to maintain contacts with her mother and grandmother with the accompaniment of the Director of Youth Protection, although the Court notes that any further degeneration of her situation should be dealt with rapidly. [ 30 ] Considering the circumstances and the delays of placement, the Court endorses the Director’s intention to elaborate an alternate life plan for the children within the term of the order. [ 31 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the motions for a revision of a Court order; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger;

[ 34 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 27, 2015; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the foster family coordinates remains confidential as to the father; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be prohibited; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their paternal family members be prohibited; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child X and her mother be prohibited; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child X and her maternal grandmother be prohibited; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child Y and her mother be determined upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child Y and her maternal grandmother be determined following agreement between the Director of Youth Protection and the maternal grandmother; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their children's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 45 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the father and AUTHORIZES the mother to sign the authorizations required for medical purposes; [ 46 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign the authorizations required for medical, school, extracurricular and travel purposes including for the application of a passport, if impossible to reach the parents in a reasonable delay; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the child X receives certain health services, namely a psychological follow-up; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 49 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will elaborate an alternate life plan for the children; [ 50 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 6 months; [ 51 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Annie Girard Attorney for the children Date of hearing: May 2, 2016