2015 QCCQ 12124, 2015 QCCQ 12124

2015 QCCQ 12124 Protection de la jeunesse — 153369 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028763-142 / 525-41-028762-144 Date: June 23, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2002 In the case of: Y Born on […], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) JD2620 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 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of June 23, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on September 23, 2014, whereby the now thirteen and ten year-old children, X and Y , were entrusted to a foster family for a period of nine months with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for revision and extension dated April 16, 2015, are as follows: For X: 3.1. the child struggles to get along with her sibling when in the community; 3.2. the child requires a lot of supervision and monitoring to ensure her safety; 3.3. the child has an intellectual delay and is following an Individual Educational Program; 3.4. the child is doing well in her current foster family but there are issues regarding lack of hygiene, respecting the curfew and the capacity to keep herself safe in the community remain a concern; 3.5. the child is being followed for a stigmatism, obesity and school functioning; 3.6. in December 2014, the child expressed suicidal ideations and was taken to [hospital A] for an evaluation; 3.7. the child met with a psychiatrist where she disclosed being sexually abused by the mother;

3.8. the mother has acknowledged that she inappropriately touched the child; 3.9. the child had been referred to art therapy on a weekly basis (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

For Y: 3.1. the child is doing well in his current foster family but there are certain concerns regarding lack of hygiene, lying and acting out; 3.2. the child is diagnosed with a genetic disorder called Neurofibromatosis Level 1; For both children: 3.3. the father is unable to care for the child due to his medical situation while he awaits a kidney transplant; 3.4. the contacts between the child and the father are occasional and inconsistent; 3.5. in fall 2014, the mother was diagnosed with depression and was given anti-depressant to manage her symptoms; 3.6. the mother has stopped taking her medication and is seeing a psychologist; 3.7. in January 2015, the mother entered a five (5) week rehabilitation program; 3.8. the mother has made progress in addressing her alcohol problem, but has not been able to address the issues of sexually abusing the child; 3.16. the mother acknowledges her history of instability including housing issues, mental health concerns and alcohol abuse and she recognizes that she needs to find stable housing and continue to address her personal issues while the child remains entrusted in a foster family (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the children remain entrusted to a foster family for a period of nine months, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lenis, admitted the allegations and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The children’s father could not attend the hearing but provided a letter expressing his consent to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] X, assisted by Me Harvey, admitted most of the alleged facts and also consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] Me Harvey, on behalf of Y, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection.

She added on his behalf that he expresses the desire to return to his mother’s care but understands that it is not yet possible. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5 as evidence: D-1: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated March 31, 2015; D-2: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated June 1, 2015; D-3: Letter from [Social Worker 2] of [Program A], dated May 29, 2015 (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-4: Psycho-educational assessment of [X], prepared by May Shore, dated April 14, 2015 (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-4: Psycho-educational assessment of [Y] prepared by Maryssa Cortina, dated March 11, 2015 (filed under

section 294.1 C.C.P.); D-5: Letter of the children’s father dated June 18, 2015. [ 10 ] In

summary, the facts alleged in support of the motions are not disputed and the mother acknowledges that she is not ready to have the children returned to her care. [ 11 ] However, she has been very proactive in seeking services to attempt to redress the situation, with the worker’s support, more particularly by applying to attend a [Program A] with her children where she is expected to « be very busy working on our daily scheduled program on Health and nutrition, domestic violence, addiction, grief recovery, assertiveness, self – esteem and AA/NA meetings 3X a week » [2] .

The children will also receive counselling and be under constant supervision. [ 12 ] The mother has also been forthcoming about many difficulties: Ms. A acknowledges her history of instability including housing issues, mental health concerns, and alcohol abuse and recognizes that she needs to find stable housing while continuing to address her personal issues while X and Y remain entrusted to a foster home. […] The current professionals involved in the children’s day to day care are beginning to learn more about the children and their many therapeutic, medical and educational needs.

The parents acknowledge these as longstanding issues that neither of them has addressed despite, the many recommendations that have been made over the course of the children’s lives. It seems that neither parent has the stability to maintain the children in their care due to the aforementioned issues; ongoing concerns remain around the recent findings of sexual abuse toward X by Ms. A. Ms. A is struggling with similar experiences from her past and the abuse of her daughter. Ms.

A has yet to stabilize her own living situation and to demonstrate her ability to consistently respond to her children’s longstanding therapeutic,

medical and educational needs. [3] [ 13 ] Moreover, both children have benefitted from Psycho-educational assessments which provide additional insight into their cognitive abilities and particular needs. Both assessments [4] confirm that more specialized services are needed for the children than their current foster family can provide. Consequently, the children will need to be transferred: The children have slowly been made aware that they will not be staying at the current foster placement past the end of the school year as the current foster mother does not feel able to meet the children’s needs.

A full assessment by the [Readaptation Centre A] ([Readaptation Centre A]) for both residential and psycho-social services will be completed on May 7, 2014 to provide:

a) help for foster mother and mother, and

b) assess the children for a [Readaptation Centre A] placement until mother is in a position to have the children return to her care. The undersigned has completed [School A] applications for the children upon the recommendation of [Elementary Principal A] [Social Worker 3] and Resource teacher [Social Worker 4]. [5] [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the children's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children, X and Y , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act for the reasons initially alleged as well as based on the additional ground at

article 38 d) 1) of the Act in the case of X and

article 38 d) 2) in the case of Y; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to foster care for a period of nine months; [ 18 ] ORDERS that all the children’s medical, educational and therapeutic needs be met in a timely manner, including following the recommendations in the children’s psychoeducational assessments; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that it is the family’s intention to attend a six week [Program B] in [Province A] from June 26 to August 3, 2015 with the approval of the Director of Youth Protection and the assurance that responsible professionals have been advised of the sexual abuse and risk of sexual abuse to the children and that measures are in place to protect the children; [ 21 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to follow through with all the recommendations of her treating professionals; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain relevant information from the treating professionals involved with the children and their family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Anne-Marie Dodds Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the children Me Alexandre Lenis Attorney for the mother TD/vl