2017 QCCQ 21158, 2017 QCCQ 21158

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711519 2017 QCCQ 21158 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] N° : 525-41-027398-130; 525-41-027973-148 DATE : October 16, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on […], 2007 Y , born on […], 2013 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on October 16 th , 2017. [ 2 ] In June 2015, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered by Judge Lucie Godin on September 25 th , 2014, concerning the young child Y, now aged three years and ten months.

The Director is asking that the child continues to be fostered in her confidential foster family until her age of majority. [ 3 ] In November 2015, the Director seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on June 1 st , 2015, concerning the child X, now aged nine years and nine months. The Director is also asking that the child remain in the same confidential foster family (the same as her sister’

s) until she reaches her age of majority. [ 4 ] Both parents are opposed to the recommendations of the Director. The mother would like her children to be entrusted back to her care. The father would like the children to be entrusted to his care. [ 5 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry, counsel for the children is in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. X has expressed her wish to remain in her foster family. The attorney reminds the Court that Y was only a few days old when she was entrusted to the care of her foster family. [ 6 ] For various reasons, the hearing of this inquiry has been postponed on many occasions. The mother had three different attorneys as

she withdrew the mandate given to the first two. The father’s attorney failed to appear twice before the Court without informing his client. The Director requested once a postponement as a new signalement received needed to be assessed. It is therefore only on October 16 th , 2017, that the inquiry was concluded. Efforts were made in order to give enough time for the mother to prepare her case with her various attorneys. Enough time was allowed for the father to try and retain the services of a lawyer.

CONTEXT [ 7 ] Since the last decisions were rendered (September 2014 for Y and June 2015 for X), the parents have continued to have difficulties and have not put an end to the situation that led to the involvement of the Director. [ 8 ] The mother’s ability to parent effectively her children remained greatly impeded by her personal challenges as described by psychologist Catherine Cloutier (parental capacities assessment done in July 2014 and by Doctor Frank (psychiatric evaluation done in May 2014). [ 9 ] At first, the mother did not take any steps to improve her parental capacities.

Her lack of insight into her situation continued to be observed. During visits with her children, she remained passive and had to be prompted in order to meet the needs of her daughters. [ 10 ] The difficulties of mother to engage with her children were often observed. The mother kept criticizing the foster mother in the presence of her children despite the efforts made by the various workers to sensitize the mother to the inappropriateness of doing so.

She was rather invited to address issues and concerns with the worker in the absence of her children. [ 11 ] In April 2016, the length of visits between the children and their mother was reduced. Soon after, in June 2016, the mother declined the offer made for her to participate in an attachment assessment with her children. She did not wish to participate in the assessment as it was to be conducted by psychologist Dr.

Cloutier who performed her parental capacity assessment previously. [ 12 ] At some point in time, in order to meet the recommendations of Doctor Frank, the mother presented herself at the Emergency Clinic of Hospital A claiming she wanted to undergo a psychiatric assessment. The results of said consultation were never provided to Court. [ 13 ] In August 2017, the worker attended a meeting with psychiatrist Dr. Casimir with the mother. The mother then informed the Doctor that she was seeking assessment results which state that she does not have mental health issues.

In the presence of the worker, Doctor Casimir informed the mother that she does have borderline personality disorder and is narcissistic. Dialectic behavioural therapy was recommended. At the conclusion of the inquiry in October 2017, the mother had not yet participated in said therapy. [ 14 ] Although the mother was duly informed of all medical appointments pertaining to the children, she has not always made herself available to attend appointments. [ 15 ] The father has completed three programs of parental capacity.

He continues to be very engaged and “entertaining” with his daughters during their visits with him. [ 16 ] But the father continues to display significant disorganisations (inability to follow-through in meeting with the worker, cancelling visits for various reasons or simply not showing-up for visits) and has lacked transparency regarding his personal life (legal status in Canada and place of living). [ 17 ] The father has agreed to participate in the attachment assessment of his daughters in June 2016. The assessor concludes that the father’s parental sensitivity is weak.

He presents as “disconnected from the needs of X regarding her functioning, doesn’t understand that she has learning difficulties and has difficulty to connect with X’s emotional needs and her reality”. [ 18 ] To quote Dr. Cloutier: “The father has the tendency to be centered on his needs, the latter impeding his capacity to perceive X’s needs. He displays a negative perception of the foster mother and presents as not being sensitive to her experience with the foster mother. The father expresses a plan of taking back his children with him that is not realistic. His visits are at present supervised.

He has difficulty to understand why they are. He displays little insight into his functioning and denial of problems. His parental sensitivity is assessed as being weak. His present plan of obtaining custody of his children is not realistic, given his difficulties to organize himself, regarding basic needs, which are ongoing since his last parenting assessment completed in 2014.

The parenting capacity assessment highlights the psychological elements that explain why the father has difficulty to question himself in terms of his responsibility and lack in parental sensitivity: “ The personality measures show aspects of asocial behavior (e.g. living in socially disapproved ways, immaturity, and problems with authority). These characteristics contribute to Mr. B’s difficulty accessing professional resources and using pro-active strategies to improve personal and familial circumstances.

Key processes related to organization and planning are limited and he proposes solutions to chronic barriers and challenges . He displays insight difficulties regarding his inconsistent investment throughout the years with his daughter [X] as well as his difficulties to organize himself in order to obtain custody of X.

Taken from his parenting capacity completed in 2014, he doesn’t present as of now as having been able to secure independent living, he did not complete his permanency residence and legal status and doesn’t work nor providing himself with an income. […] In the relation with her father, X is passive and displays little initiative in the relation. With her father, X displays avoidant strategies, she is passive, withdraws, does not take care of her father. She uses these strategies to appease herself in the contact with her father. Her attachment to her father is insecure.

The relationship presents as being invested mostly in terms of material gratifications, regarding what he is giving her, but less so in terms of what they do together or the relationship they have construed. The father’s milieu is poorly invested and generates confusion to X”. [ 19 ] Concerning Y, Dr. Cloutier writes:

“ The father has difficulty to be sensitive and show empathy to the emotional needs of Y that is likely to have an impact on the relationship. He presents limitations in his capacity to take ownership regarding his history of inconsistent contact with his daughter as well encompassing the period where these contacts have been supervised. The father has a discourse regarding his daughter and his plan of his daughter’s living with him, that doesn’t match with what he is doing or his functioning in his everyday life.

He is in denial regarding his parental limits that have led him to not be able to take charge of Y since her birth. He does not recognize the living milieu of his daughter, as well as the need of his daughter to present an attachment to this milieu. The father’s parental sensitivity to Y’s emotional need is weak”. [ 20 ] The father also continues to exhibit difficulties in not being pro-active in learning about his children’s health, life in the foster home and at school.

Although he claims that he wants to assume full responsibilities for his daughters, he fails to be involved and to participate fully with the intervention of the Director. [ 21 ] Even if the father was notified of all medical appointments for the children, he has missed many of them. In a similar fashion, he has not met the workers on a regular basis as requested to do so.

On many occasions, the father indicated that he did not have enough money for the bus fare, either canceling meetings in advance or simply not showing-up. [ 22 ] The father has been reluctant to provide the worker with information that could have helped to clarify his immigration status. On many occasions, he offered to provide the worker with the name and phone number of his immigration lawyer but failed to do so.

Even when present at Court at the conclusion of the inquiry, the father was reluctant to give his current address indicating that he lives with his older daughter and does not wish to get her involved with the Director. [ 23 ] The father has claimed for months (if not years) that he would soon obtain a status enabling him to establish permanent residency in Canada. He testified in October 2017 to the effect that he hopes to obtain permanent residency in June 2018. [ 24 ] Since December 2013, the two sisters have been living together in the foster family of Mrs.

C: Y was then three weeks old and X was almost seven years old. [ 25 ] X is a child who has learning and behavioural difficulties. Psychologist Donna Robin concluded in March 2016 that the child is “functioning globally at the upper end of the Extremely Low range of intelligence, with evenly developed skills in all domains.” At the time, the child continued to display symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). [ 26 ] While in grade 2, X was in a special class with a small ratio of students to teacher.

Her progress were such that she completed her third grade in a regular class. [ 27 ] She received speech therapy during the summer of 2015 and made great progress. During the same summer, she did exhibit concerning sexual behaviour and was provided with treatment accordingly. [ 28 ] In May 2016, an audiology assessment revealed the need for the child to wear a hearing aid. She is currently in grade 4 and is receiving the support services that she needs. [ 29 ] Y is currently attending daycare on a full-time basis.

The child is evolving positively in the care of her foster mother. [ 30 ] As per the recommendations made following the attachment assessment of the two sisters with their foster mother, support services were provided to the foster mother in order to increase communication, child management and to improve the foster mother’s response to the children’s emotional needs. [ 31 ] Both girls are said to respond positively when their foster mother uses the methods proposed by the educator. The quality of the relationship of the children with their foster mother has improved following the support services provided.

The foster mother is open to suggestions made to improve closeness and attachment between herself and the children. She is committed to caring for the children on a long-term basis and offers her full collaboration to the Director. [ 32 ] The maximum duration of placement has been reached months ago: in September 2015 for Y and in December 2015 for X. [ 33 ] The evidence reveals that neither parent is in a position to assume care for their children. The Director has established that the security and development of the children are still compromised.

The measures recommended meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest. [ 34 ] The Court invites nonetheless the parents to remain involved with their children, to accept the support of the Director in order to play an active and positive role in the life of their children.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the children to the care of their current confidential foster family; [ 37 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the modalities and duration of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS the minimum frequency at once (1) per month; [ 39 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of parental authority pertaining to medical, educational and travel needs

(including the request for a passport) and GRANTS these attributes to the foster family; [ 40 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents until their age of majority; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. Signed in Town A on November 24 th , 2017 _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Léandre Dubé-Laberge Attorney for the children Me Nadia Martinez Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : October 16 th , 2017