2016 QCCQ 5138, 2016 QCCQ 5138

Protection de la jeunesse — 162942 2016 QCCQ 5138 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-027641-133 DATE : January 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2004 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on May 12, 2015, entrusting X to a rehabilitation center along with other corrective measures for a further nine months. [ 2 ] Although the parents admit the allegations pertaining to the state of endangerment, they both submit that X can return to his father’s care with the continued support from social services. [ 3 ] Through his lawyer, the child also expresses a desire to return home.

The context [ 4 ] At the time of the court order in May 2015, the child was exhibiting serious behavioural problems including defiance, opposition, aggression, stealing and running away.

Moreover, he continued to display sexually inappropriate behaviour including sexual activity with his younger brother, Y. [ 5 ] The objective of the measures ordered in May 2015 is stated in paragraphs 15 to 17 of the judgment, reproduced here for ease of reference: [15] Given the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that neither parent is as yet capable of ensuring the structure and constant supervision X needs on a daily basis, given his behaviours. [16] The Court finds that there is a pressing need that X receive treatment for his problem related to sexual acting out.

A Centres offer such treatment in their Challenges Program. The parents express their commitment to follow this program with their son. [17] For this reason, the Court will order measures to apply for a shorter period of time than suggested, in order to be in a better position to evaluate the feasibility of X returning home at the end of this period, or if another plan needs to be considered. [ 6 ] Ultimately, the success of the measures was clearly contingent upon the commitment of the parents to follow through with the intervention plan.

This included maintaining regular contact with the child, participating in therapy and consistently implementing safety plans designed to eliminate the risk of sexual acting out. The Issue

[ 7 ] Does the evidence establish that an extension of the rehabilitation center placement is required in the child’s best interest? If so, for what period of time? The evidence [ 8 ] The evidence presented at the hearing establishes the following: [ 9 ] The father has steadily progressed on several levels. Over time, contact with his son has become consistent and the duration has gradually increased, thereby contributing to X’s well-being.

As a result, overnight visits will begin shortly. [ 10 ] Furthermore, the father has recently demonstrated a commitment to working with the Challenges program and will also be participating in the Family Ties Program starting in February 2016. Although he was prepared to participate earlier, there was no availability. [ 11 ] At the hearing, the father voices his commitment to his son, stating that he’ll do whatever is required to have him returned to his care.

For example, he recognizes that living in the same neighbourhood as the mother increases the likelihood of X seeing his brother Y without adult supervision. As a result, he intends to move to a different neighbourhood as a preventive measure. [ 12 ] When asked how he would handle potential contact between X and his other children, particularly Z, the father is of the opinion that he’d be able to manage any situation as it arises. However, no concrete solutions are proposed. [ 13 ] The mother’s situation is quite different.

After failing to respect the conditions imposed for outside visits in April 2015, she was informed that direct contact would be restricted to the rehabilitation center. In September 2015, outside visits were once again permitted with strict conditions. The result is described as follows: “Ms. B immediately did not respect the time granted for the visit; and very soon began to take X to her home in order to spend time with his siblings, including Y. Although Ms.

B has always communicated openly with the present worker; she has never followed through with any progressive planning regarding her management of X [1] ” [ 14 ] Consequently, her visits have been again restricted to the center and her contact with X has been minimal. Currently, the mother has expressed a refusal to return to the center, claiming that seeing her son in this setting causes her to be depressed for days. [ 15 ] Moreover, she has not participated in the Challenges program despite her initial commitment to do so.

At the hearing, she adamantly refuses to consider cooperating with social services, claiming that her work and family responsibilities leave her little time for appointments and follow ups. [ 16 ] Furthermore, she fails to see the purpose of personally investing in a treatment program. In her opinion, her son’s placement has failed to produce any positive results. She blames the environment he’s in, the school he attends and the placement itself for the difficulties he currently experiences. She considers that the limitations imposed upon her visitation are exaggerated and unwarranted.

As far as she’s concerned, a return to a family home, to his roots and his identity, is the only solution. Acknowledging that a return to the maternal home is not possible at this time, she therefore supports the father’s position. [ 17 ] The youth protection worker, while recognizing the great strides achieved by the father, cautions against a hasty return of the child to his care. He emphasizes that the progress is recent, incomplete and necessarily fragile. Given X’s emotional instability, a failed reintegration and return to placement would likely have catastrophic results for the child.

In his opinion, a return home at this time is premature. [ 18 ] According to the Court report, Karina Bensmihen, the psychologist from the Challenges Program, recently voiced the same opinion: “Ms. Bensmihen stated that an attempt to reintegrate X with his father should be tried; however stressing that this should be done slowly. (…) Ms. Bensmihen stressed that Mr. A would need to move from the present location, given the close proximity to the siblings and risk of unsupervised contacts. Ms. Bensmihen supports a recommendation to nine more months of placement; in order to monitor Mr.

A’s continued progress and to introduce supportive structures, such as an educator and possibly an after school program. [2] ” [ 19 ] X’s behaviour in the rehabilitation centre has generally improved but fluctuates in certain contexts. For instance, the staff has noticed regressive behaviours when either of his parents is out of town. The educators have also correlated continued inappropriate sexual behaviour with X’s feelings of anxiety and stress in certain situations.

The youth protection worker summarizes his behaviour at the center in the following manner: (D-3, p. 8) “The Dornal log illustrated a mixture of many positive days for X, as well as many incidents of problematic behaviour. The staff described X as maturing, being able to discuss problems more and showing less aggressive behaviour such as hitting or stealing. X’s main problematic behaviours were rudeness, defiance and peer conflict. [3] ” [ 20 ] X has developed a strong relationship with his primary worker at the rehabilitation center. At school, the child has progressed well both academically and behaviourally.

As well, he continues to participate actively in the Challenges program. However, he has been described as psychologically infantile, requiring reliable and consistent structure, close supervision and attention. Analysis [ 21 ] The evidence is conclusive that a reintegration into father’s care is a realistic goal that can be achieved within a definitive time frame. On the other hand, the conditions required to ensure success have not yet been met. Although the father is certainly in good faith when he states that X can now return home, he underestimates the potential difficulties that lie ahead.

[ 22 ] In this particular case, the needs of the child are demanding and require progressive reintegration combined with the implementation of support services as described by the psychologist. [ 23 ] Moreover, although the father intends to move to a different location, no concrete steps have yet been taken. [ 24 ] Given the recent nature of the father’s progress and considering the history of inconsistency, it is critical that he demonstrate the capacity to maintain these improvements over an extended period of time before complete reintegration can be seriously considered.

In particular, a strict adherence to the safety plan without exception is crucial. Considering past transgressions, prudence is called for. [ 25 ] In the Court’s opinion, a further period of seven months is required to complete this process and achieve a successful reintegration to the father’s care. This period also coincides with the beginning of the next school year, allowing the child to be settled before starting a new school year.

Following reintegration, support services will be required to ensure that progress remains on course. [ 26 ] Although the mother has made her opinion clear, it is the duty of the Court to solicit her cooperation. Any participation on her part would facilitate the intervention process and consequently serve her son’s interests. [ 27 ] At this time, the mother displays a rigidity that prevents her from recognizing the progress that X has truly made. Her focus has been diverted to her own needs, to the detriment of X’s.

Her disappointment with the intervention process has coloured her perception, leading her to distance herself from her son. [ 28 ] Although the Court has no doubt that she loves her son, the mother must be reminded that X needs to know that she loves and supports him. A willingness to maintain consistent visits despite restrictive conditions is a minimum in that regard.

The court encourages the mother to take, at the very least, this concrete step in her son’s best interest. [ 29 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered for the motives initially declared; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a period of seven months; [ 33 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and his parents take place in accordance with an agreement between the parties, failing which, the frequency and modality shall be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including a degree of supervision if required; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the father’s care following the rehabilitation center placement; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receive certain health services, namely, psychological counselling provided by the [A Center] Challenges program; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents adhere to the safety plan determined by the youth protection worker; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek therapy to address her personal issues; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek therapy to address his personal issues; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On January 28, 2016 KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the child

Date of hearing: January 13, 2016 KO/lf