2012 QCCQ 11183, 2012 QCCQ 11183

Protection de la jeunesse — 123703 2012 QCCQ 11183 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY [ … ] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004154-129 DATE: May 4, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [ … ] , 2012 DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF CENTRE DE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- JC0B11 B Parents of the child ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the security and the development of the child X are in danger in reason of a serious risk of negligence, as detailed more amply in paragraph 3 of the motion for protection. [ 2 ] As well as other measures of aid and assistance, the Petitioner requests that the child be entrusted to foster care for a period of 6 months, with contacts with the parents according to agreement and in the presence of a third person designated by the Director. [ 3 ] The Director produces numerous documents and reports in the Court file, including the analysis of the child's social situation as evidence (pièces D-5 et D-6), in lieu of testimony and this, by consent. [ 4 ] At the onset of the hearing, the parents contest the placement of their child in foster care and subsidiary, the frequency and supervision of their contacts.

This position is revised during the hearing, the parents withdrawing their contestation and agreeing to the measures, to the exception of the contacts, which they request be twice a week for 3 hour periods; [ 5 ] The parents form a couple since May 2010 and reside together since June 2010. They are engaged to be married. They declare no difficulties on either a personal or conjugal basis. [ 6 ] The mother has a moderate intellectual handicap and is diagnosed with ADHD.

Although she is able to see as to her basic needs independently, she has never lived alone and the evidence demonstrates that her judgment is deficient, putting her in various situations of vulnerability and instability.

There is also a chronic problem of exaggeration and compulsive lying. [ 7 ] The mother receives numerous services and help from family and friends, more notably from the CLSC and the center A and this, since her youth. [ 8 ] On November 23, 2011, the honourable Justice Micheline Perrault of the Superior Court, renders a provisional judgment on a Motion to Institute Protective Supervision, appointing a third person to administer the property and take care of the mother and this, awaiting a further assessment of her degree of incapacity (pièce D-4). [ 9 ] The medical and psychosocial assessment produced in the Superior Court file details a permanent incapacity to administer her property (total) and protect her person and exercise her civil rights (partial), based primarily on her inability to make proper decisions and handle her affairs (Pièces P-1 and P-2). [ 10 ] Both parents deny the mother having any limitations. [ 11 ] The father 's has 9 children from previous relationships, ranging in age from 7 to 31 years old.

After several years of absence and since August 2011, he visits with his 2 youngest children every 2 weeks, with supervision, through A Services. He has no significant contact with his other children and is not otherwise involved in their lives. [ 12 ] The father has a history of domestic violence and substance abuse. In 2006, he is found guilty of assault towards one of his children, while inebriated. The evidence notes no therapies as to violence or dependency. [ 13 ] The parent's relationship is punctuated regularly by conflict and separations.

The report emanating from the local police detachment denotes 8 calls to their address between the period of September 2010 and July 2011, numerous of these finding either one or both of the parents intoxicated (pièce D-11). [ 14 ] More notably, in September 2010, the mother declares having been sexually abused by her spouse and presents herself to the local hospital to complete a rape kit.

A few weeks afterwards, she recants and resumes common life with the father. [ 15 ] The pregnancy is planned and the birth of X is eagerly awaited by the parents, particularly the mother, for whom this is a first child. [ 16 ] [Social Worker 1], nurse with the CLSC cityA, follows the parents throughout most of the pregnancy and until the provisional placement of the child in foster care, within the program A. Although the mother is collaborative and available, she demonstrates significant difficulties comprehending and integrating the advice given as to the eventual care and needs of an infant.

She makes implausible declarations as to medical care received during her pregnancy (vitamins administered through her navel, her maternal milk being sampled by the insertion of a needle in her breast, etc.). [ 17 ] The nurse visits the parent's domicile 5 times and although the father is present, he doesn't participate in the meetings. He doesn't participate in the pre-natal classes or the medical follow-up. [ 18 ] X is born [ … ] , 2012 and placed in provisional foster care on January 23.

The parent's contacts are supervised at the offices of the Director. [ 19 ] Contacts are provisionally ordered for 3 periods of 2 hours, on a weekly basis. [ 20 ] The father is regularly absent and participates minimally in the visits. The mother is present and affectionate with her son but, even with modeling, is rapidly overwhelmed when the baby cries or requires specific attention. [ 21 ] On February 20 th , the mother calls to cancel the visits until the hearing date. The parents fail to attend the orientation table

meeting on February 23 rd . [ 22 ] The Court determines that the parent's parental capacities are limited to the point where their child is at serious risk of negligence should he be entrusted to their care. [ 23 ] The Court cannot question the mother's affection for her child, or her determination to care for him. Notwithstanding, her limitations are significant and greatly reduce her capacities to understand and assume the constant needs of an infant.

The evidence brought forth by the health and social service professionals is consistent to the effect that the mother's ability to decode her infant's specific needs is severely deficient. [ 24 ] The persistence of the father's personal problems, history of violence and negligence towards his other children, cumulated with his insistence on the mother's adequate parental capacities, convince the Court that he is also unable to assume the needs of his child and possibly palliate the mother's deficiencies.

He demonstrates little interest in receiving services to address his various issues and refuses to collaborate with the intervention. He testifies that at this juncture, he cedes contacts to the mother, so she may bond with X. [ 25 ] X requires a stable environment in which he will receive response to his needs. In the present circumstances, the child's best interests dictate that he be entrusted to foster care. [ 26 ] As to the contacts, these must correspond to the child's needs.

The relationship between X and his parents is to be constructed and considering the present circumstances, the parents must rapidly decide the place they will assume in the next months of their child's life. X is in a crucial bonding and developmental phase, which will require regular and consistent presence from them. [ 27 ] The Director insists on the sombre prognosis and declares that a life plan will be determined.

The Petitioner asks the Court to establish contacts every 2 weeks for one hour, in order to permit the mother to process the separation. [ 28 ] The Court considers that it is premature to undertake such a reasoning, especially in view of the principles of the law, which state:

Article 4.(…) Moreover, the parents' involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. [ 29 ] This process is particularly delicate in the case of the mother and the intervention has to reflect her limited capacities and own vulnerabilities. [ 30 ] Consequently, the Court prefers the reasoning of the child's attorney, which adequately weighs the present interests of X to create a significant bond with his parents, with his overall development.

The mother, who has been consistent towards her son, will maintain regular access in a supervised setting, receiving modeling, which must be tailored to her specific limitations. [ 31 ] The father's has indicated in his testimony and through his actions that he is not prepared to remain significantly involved with his son, considering the involvement of the DYP.

The Court will therefore favor the mother's access. [ 32 ] For those reasons, the Court: [ 33 ] MAINTAINS the present motion; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the child to foster care; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined following mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director; [ 37 ] ORDERS that in default of such an agreement, the contacts be exercised as follows: • For the mother, every week for a period of 1 hour; • For the father, once a month for a period of 1 hour; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a written access

schedule be concluded between the parties; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the contacts be confirmed by the parents at least 24 hours before each visit, in default of which, the visit will be cancelled; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform of the evolution of their situation; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child receive the health services required by his situation; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment or body provides aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the parents be offered parenting classes and services directed towards their parental capacities; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of 6 months; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of centre de jeunesse A for the execution of the measures.

__________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Petitioner Me Gaston Veilleux Attorney for the parents Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 2, 2012