r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 17352

Protection de la jeunesse — 158726 2015 QCCQ 17352 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004378-124 DATE: June 12, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2006 Child ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for revision of a judgment rendered on December 10, 2014 concerning X born on [...], 2006. [ 3 ] In virtue of the previous judgment, the Court revises the protective measures in force in reason of physical and educational neglect.

While maintaining the child with his mother, the Court orders various protective measures for 5 months, including a suspension of his contacts with his father. [ 4 ] The Director alleges that the child’s behaviours require that he receive rehabilitation in a neutral and structured environment, and requests his placement in a reception center.

Within a one year order, the Director recommends that the Court further structure the child’s contacts with his parents. [ 5 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court file. [ 6 ] The mother declares being in agreement with the orientation proposed, save the issue of the father’s access, requesting that the Court pursue the suspension. [ 7 ] The father indicates being generally in agreement with the conclusions. As to his contacts, he requests clarification and wishes to present his plan for the resumption of such.

He thinks the Court should consider a shorter order. [ 8 ] X consents to the conclusions of the motion. [ 9 ] Analysis and decision [ 10 ] The last Court order underlines the continued precariousness of X’s situation; although the support of a psychiatric follow-up and subsequent medication is expected help further stabilize his functioning in the various spheres of his life. [ 11 ] Furthermore, the Court suspends the father’s contacts with X, as these are no longer beneficial and contribute to his behavioural outbursts.

The Court adds that “ the father needs to evolve as to his availability, constancy and implication in order to rebuild a healthy father/son bond ’ (paragraph 27). [ 12 ] Since the last Court order, X’s behaviours progressively degenerate in both frequency and importance, at home as well as at

school. Numerous altercations occur, requiring police and medical interventions. [ 13 ] Adjustments as to his medication have little effect. [ 14 ] The mother still struggles with anxiety issues, which intensify in response to X’s difficulties. Although now well-tooled and more attune to her son’s needs, her efforts are insufficient to stem her son’s turbulent and increasingly violent behaviours. [ 15 ] It is not possible to put in place a psychological follow-up for X, in view of the intensity of his behaviours and instability.

It is recommended that this process wait his being available to create the therapeutic bond necessary for beneficial results. [ 16 ] The whole culminates in an incident occurring on February 3, 2015. Responding to a refusal from his mother, X spins out of control. He remains in crisis for most of the day, during which he is continually verbally and physically abusive with his mother. He throws objects and hits his mother repeatedly, on one occasion on the head, causing physical trauma.

The mother, fearing for her safety, phones the caseworker and asks for assistance. [ 17 ] X is sent for a psychiatric evaluation and is released after an adjustment of his medication. The mother seeks medical treatment for her injury. In review of his evolution, the Director applies emergency measures entrusting X to a reception center. [ 18 ] The Director presents its motion for revision, as well as a request for provisional compulsory foster care. The mother contests this motion, requesting that X return to her care.

After hearing the parties, the Court renders a provisional order maintaining X in a reception center, situation which continues to this day. [ 19 ] In the reception center, X’s oppositional behaviours continue with little abatement. His tantrums and disorganisation require his transfer to a specialized unit able to insure his physical security while providing readaptation. His behaviours denote an important need to take control of his environment.

Progressively, he starts to respond to the structure and routine of the reception center. [ 20 ] Since his placement, X’s access to his mother progresses, as does their respective positions. Initially both requesting his return home, they now admit realizing the importance of X’s needs for structure and rehabilitation. [ 21 ] The mother maintains her cooperation with the Director as well as the various other professionals implicated with her son and this, although she has a tendency towards victimization and denial.

Notwithstanding, she is able to dialogue with the caseworkers and educators in view of working in a concert to promote X’s functioning at home as well at the reception center. To this end, it is sometimes necessary to adjust the contacts in view of responding to X’s needs on a punctual basis and providing support.

Overall, the contacts are beneficial and positive. [ 22 ] The structure of X’s contacts with his mother becomes more malleable, providing contacts in his home environment, but putting in place the possibility that he require additional measures depending on his evolution, including accompaniment by the Director or that the contacts occur at the reception center.

This formula is well adjusted for X’s situation and, giving the open relationship between the mother and the Director, and the mother’s continued sensitivity to her son’s needs, remains the best solution. [ 23 ] Although this is not the initial suggestion by the Director, the parties all agree to the pursuit of the provisional order. [ 24 ] As of the last order, the father continues to offer minimal cooperation, which is an overall reflection of the situation existing since the Director’s intervention. [ 25 ] As of March 2015, the father makes himself available for meetings with the caseworker.

Although he is present and makes himself available to dialogue, his cooperation is observed to be superficial and constrained. He is unable to identify his involvement in his son’s difficulties and resists requiring services for his personal situation. [ 26 ] At the hearing, the father testifies to not understanding what he is meant to do to correct the situation and expecting guidance from the Director.

He states wishing to be part of the solution, yet is unable to clearly state the problematic and this, although it has been repeatedly put forth in reports, intervention plans and Court judgments. [ 27 ] Independently, the father seeks and participates in classes meant to help him deal with children with behavioural difficulties.

Although certainly a positive step, it also underlines perceptions that deflect the root of the problematic, which is not X, but the family dynamic in place. [ 28 ] On April 28, after evaluating the evidence, the Court declares that the security and the development of the child are still in danger. In view of the father’s testimony, interim measures are put in place in order that the caseworker meets with the father and elaborate a specific intervention plan. [ 29 ] On the hearing on applicable measures, the Director produces the intervention plan (D-9).

The father testifies to his understanding of this process and undertakes to participate towards the reinstatement of his contacts with X. [ 30 ] At the present time, the previous determinations as to X’s best interests in respect to contacts with his father remain pertinent. The process of reconstruction of the father/son relationship cannot be undertaken until Mr.

A makes the realizations necessary to effectuate durable change as to his perceptions and parental capacities. [ 31 ] Although the father’s testimony convinces the Court of his sincere wish to resume contacts with his son and take the steps necessary to promote such, there is still no fundamental understanding of the dysfunctional dynamic having justified the suspension. As such, the situation is little changed from the last judgment. [ 32 ] The Court cites with approval, the conclusion of said plan in regards to the father/son contacts, which mirrors the evidence and the best interests of X:

In regards to the contacts with the father, for any contact to be set up between X and his father, Mr. A must first understand how the situation got to the point it is at today. A better understanding of what is expected of a parent, of who he is as an individual and as parent will require him to do introspection on his past actions.

Should this fail, it is difficult to foresee the prohibition of contact being lifted. [ 33 ] X’s history is fraught with exposure to parental conflict, violence, instability and rejection, resulting in the persistent implication of the Director of Youth Protection, as well as repeated changes in environment, including two episodes of placement in foster care.

Within all this, X knows little respite and integrates behaviours which are inappropriate, but that help him to ventilate his frustrations. [ 34 ] The evidence convinces the Court that X requires a structured, neutral and coherent environment in order to rehabilitate his behaviours and help him to auto-control his anger. A comprehensive intervention is necessary to fully address the significant needs of this young child and promote his development.

In this respect, the orientation suggested by the Director responds to X’s best interests, although the Court integrates details reflecting the declared intentions of the parties. [ 35 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the motion for revision; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 38 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the decision rendered on December 10, 2014; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a reception center; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the father present himself to the office of the Director at regular intervals to report on his situation; [ 42 ] TAKES ACT of the elaboration of a calendar to this effect; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be upon agreement between the parties; [ 44 ] ORDERS that non-supervised visits with the mother will occur one day a week from 9 am to 5 pm, except if the situation of the child dictate a shorter period.

The visits will occur at a place determined following agreement the Director and the mother and this, in respecting the needs and the evolution of X. [ 45 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will offer services of accompaniment and modeling to the mother during the visits, if agreed upon; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and his father be held for therapeutic reasons, in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection and at their offices; [ 48 ] TAKES ACT of the father's agreement to fully participate in the application of the intervention plan produced in the Court file under D-9 and this, in view of the eventual re-evaluation of his access rights; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information by the Director of Youth Protection with the specialists implicated with the child; [ 50 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information by the Director of Youth Protection with the specialists implicated with the parents; [ 51 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will clarify the father's access to the specialists implicated with X in order to facilitate such; [ 52 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 53 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Frédérique Dupuy Attorney for the Petitioner Me Mélodie Verreault Nantel Attorney for the mother Me Yann Trignac Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant

Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 25, April 28 and June 12, 2015