2020 QCCQ 9559, 2020 QCCQ 9559

Protection de la jeunesse — 202274 2020 QCCQ 9559 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000427-162 DATE: April 23, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2016 Child -and- A -and- B Parents/Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The child was entrusted to a foster family when she was a few months old. In 2018, the child progressively returns to her mother’s care. [ 2 ] The father is totally absent from the child’s life and neither the director of youth protection nor the mother know how to reach him. [ 3 ] The child lives with her mother on a full-time basis from July 2018.

As the situation remains fragile and still requires much support, the court extends the application of protective measures in January of last year. [ 4 ] At the time, the mother’s general situation is apparently improving. The mother cooperates with the DYP but she is sometimes reluctant to the professionals’ advice. The social worker is then under the impression that the mother keeps information from her in regard to the extent of her problems.

The following months prove her right. [ 5 ] The situation worsens as time goes by, leading to the child being removed from her mother’s care, once more, as of June 1, 2019. She is entrusted to a foster family, on a provisory basis, ever since. [ 6 ] The court is now seized with an application for revision and extension of order. The director of youth protection (DYP) asks that the child be entrusted to her foster family until she comes of age.

The hearing takes place after being postponed on numerous occasions, at the mother’s request. [ 7 ] The mother agrees that her daughter remain in foster care until she reaches her majority. So does the child’s counsel. [ 8 ] The DYP recommends that contact between the child and the mother take place following agreement between the parties. Neither the DYP nor the mother suggest that the court establish a minimum frequency for contact in case they fail to reach an agreement. [ 9 ] However, the court expresses worries in regard to the apparent impact of those visits on the child.

The child’s counsel shares those worries and so does the social worker.

[ 10 ] Therefore, the only issue at stake concerns contact between the child and her mother. [ 11 ] In regard to the long-term placement, the evidence is compelling, to say the least. [ 12 ] When the court renders the previous judgment, in January 2019, the mother lives with the father of her two youngest children. They struggle financially and also deal with other issues, namely domestic violence and the spouse’s abusive drinking. They receive support from the spouse’s mother. [ 13 ] In April of 2019, the mother and her spouse split up. Thereafter, the situation worsens.

From that point, the child does not attend day care anymore. Moreover, the mother cannot, on her own, meet the child’s needs concerning safety, food, stimulation and socialization. Following the separation, the mother cannot rely on her spouse’s mother for support anymore. She is therefore left with little to no social network. [ 14 ] When visiting the mother’s home in May, the social worker notices that the house is messier than before. The child is more agitated than usual and her attitude and behaviour worry the social worker.

The mother then announces she plans to go on a trip with the child in order to visit family in [Province A]. She says they will be gone for a week. [ 15 ] However, the mother is lying. She ends up in [Province B], with the child, at a new boyfriend’s. For a while, the DYP loses track of her. With the help of RCMP and Children’s Aid Society of the area, the child is finally located in [Province B]. The mother refuses to cooperate with social services. The child is then removed from her care and brought back to her former foster family.

One can imagine the turmoil it was for that young child to be temporarily placed in [Province B] and accompanied by strangers to come back to Quebec. [ 16 ] The mother also comes back to this area, only to leave again shortly after. She does not request any contact with the child and leaves for [Province A] following a court hearing on June 10. She tells the social worker she wants the child’s file to be transferred to [Province A] because she intends to stay there. On the following months, the mother is incarcerated for a while. She is released in December.

The mother then moves back to this area, living in a women’s shelter. [ 17 ] Since June 1, 2019, the child is entrusted to her former foster family. She is not in good shape when she arrives. In fact, she obviously suffered serious neglect while living with her mother. She only gained one kilogram in one year. Even though she was almost potty trained before leaving the foster home, she still wears diapers when she comes back a year later.

She struggles with language and other developmental delays and lacked stimulation while living with her mother. [ 18 ] The foster parents have to put in place stricter routines in order to facilitate the child’s return. At first, it is quite chaotic, but it improves gradually.

The foster mother describes the child’s behaviour as a roller coaster. [ 19 ] Nevertheless, the foster parents love the child and commit themselves to take care of her on the long term. [ 20 ] There is no doubt that the child’s interest requires that she remain with her foster family until she comes of age. [ 21 ] What about contact between the child and her mother? [ 22 ] In that regard, the evidence is worrisome. [ 23 ] This very young and highly vulnerable child has to deal with the likely consequences of a traumatic background. She witnessed violence and suffered serious neglect.

Despite all the help provided, the mother fails to be able to protect her. All the turmoil which took place while the child was back living with her mother has an impact on her. We must aim at providing the child with stability so she can heal her psychological wounds. She has specific needs and deals with challenges stemming from her past. [ 24 ] The child has a significant bound with her foster parents, who have been, are and will be there for her. She is growing roots within that family. Contact with her mother can only take place if they do not jeopardize the child’s well-being and emotional stability.

Needless to say, visitation has to meet the child’s needs and best interest. [ 25 ] Unfortunately, the evidence reveals it is not the case. It is unfortunate though not surprising. Considering her life's history, it is reasonable to believe that the child fears losing her foster family and going back to her mother’s. She needs to be reassured that she will be safe with her foster parents on the long term. [ 26 ] During the months following her return to her foster family, the child makes positive progress. [ 27 ] However, she remains very fragile.

Slight changes in her routine can lead to disorganization. [ 28 ] Between the end of June and September of 2019, there is no telephone contact between the mother and the child. A call finally takes place on September 25. Following that call, the child becomes disorganized. Problem behaviours that had ceased then return. It goes on for some time. The foster parents support the child to help her settle down. Other phone calls take place but the mother does not always respect the planned schedule. Moreover, the mother sometimes makes inappropriate comments to the child.

The latter shows very little interest for those conversations. [ 29 ] In January of this year, the child meets with her mother for the first time in seven months. Her siblings are also present. Another contact takes place in February. The mother’s attitude and behaviour are appropriate. Nevertheless the child shows negative reactions afterwards. She is very emotional and she displays inappropriate behaviours. Mealtimes are chaotic and the child defies rules. She can hit her foster mother, but she is also more affectionate with her than before. It takes days to come back to the normal routine at home.

The child obviously tests the attachment bound. She does so by adopting behaviours that could result in rejection, looking to them for security, stability and reassurance. [ 30 ] The social worker believes that contact with her mother may be detrimental to the child. She adds that the child is in a survival

mode and we must be very cautious in regard to a possible attachment disorder that she may develop or already have. [ 31 ] Nothing in the evidence leads the court to believe that contact with the mother is in the child’s interest. In fact, it rather appears that contact is harmful for the child even though the mother does not mean her harm.

The child is traumatized and the court fears that seeing her mother hinders her development. [ 32 ] The child also shows strong reactions following contact with her siblings, in the presence of their paternal grandmother to whom they are entrusted. [ 33 ] At the end of the hearing, DYP’s counsel pleads that the child needs a break. The court agrees with that submission. [ 34 ] The child’s counsel goes further, submitting that the court should forbid contact with the mother, for a time, because every access reactivates the trauma.

He has the same opinion in regard to contact between the child and her siblings. [ 35 ] The mother’s counsel states that her client tries her best and acknowledges her issues. Counsel pleads the court should let the parties reach agreements concerning access. [ 36 ] The evidence demonstrates that, at this time, contact with her mother does not meet the child’s interest. However, it is difficult to foresee how it will evolve in the future, since the court orders long-term protective measures.

Nevertheless, the court concludes that contact should be forbidden for at least one year, so the child can settle down and be reassured in regard to her stable life with her foster parents. [ 37 ] Subsequently, the parties could plan contact, on certain conditions. If the mother wishes to have contact with the child, she will have to request it, plan it with the social worker and agree on modalities. The visits, if any, would take place under supervision. If the child shows negative reactions following visits, the mother should be made aware of those reactions and visits should stop.

In any case, if the parties cannot reach an agreement, they will have to seize to court in order to establish modalities or extend the prohibition of contact. [ 38 ] The court also believes that the child’s counsel should be informed of the evolution of the situation. It can be done by transmitting to counsel the report that is prepared in order to review the child’s situation pursuant to

section 57 of the youth protection act . [ 39 ] As for contact between the child and her siblings, at this time they also have a negative impact on the child, but it may well improve as the situation settles down. However, adults surrounding the child must pay close attention to her reactions and plan visits accordingly. [ 40 ] The court hopes that, with the love and care she receives from her foster family and professional support, the child will be able to heal and outgrow her chaotic first years of life.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 43 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the judgment rendered on January 9, 2019; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP, until [...], 2034; [ 45 ] TAKES ACT that the foster family is the one of Mrs. C and Mr.

D; [ 46 ] PROHIBITS contact between the child and her mother until May 2021; [ 47 ] ORDERS that, from May 2021, contact between the child and her mother, if any, be determined following an agreement between the parties, including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 48 ] PROHIBITS contact between the child and her father; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the exercise of parental authority be removed from the parents over the medical, school, social and other authorizations, including those pertaining to a driver's licence and to a passport application and ORDERS that the DYP and the foster family be authorized to sign all authorizations in place of the parents; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the DYP when required on the measures applied to themselves or their child to put an end to the situation that jeopardizes the child's security or development; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the DYP report yearly to child’s counsel in regard to the evolution of her situation; [ 52 ] ORDERS that a person working in an establishment provides to child as well as the family, aid, counsel and assistance until [...], 2034; [ 53 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment;

[ 54 ] ORDERS the parties to conform themselves to the present order. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: February 25, 2020