2014 QCCQ 13902, 2014 QCCQ 13902

Protection de la jeunesse — 142349 2014 QCCQ 13902 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-026019-125 Date: March 25, 2014 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 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 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of March 25, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on January 21, 2013, whereby the now twelve year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of her father with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for revision dated December 18, 2013, are as follows: 3.1. the child remained under the care of the father; 3.2. in the month of July 2013, the mother stated that she had terminated her relationship with C; 3.3. the child began high school in September 2013; 3.4. the child is involved in extra-curricular activities; 3.5. in September 2013, the child started having sleepovers at the mother's home;

3.6. in October 2013, the child began Art Therapy at the CLSC; 3.7. the mother maintained regular contacts with the child; 3.8. the mother attended a few random drug tests and the results were negative; 3.9. the father continues to have a serious heart condition; 3.10. the child wants to return to the mother's care; 3.11. on December 11, 2013, the Director of Youth Protection received a signalement whereby the child disclosed that the father had hit her during an argument; 3.12. for the past two (2) weeks, the child remained with her mother (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the care of her parents, taking judicial notice that the child will reside primarily with her mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted the facts alleged and consented to the all proposed measures, except to submit to random drug and alcohol testing.

She has consistently proved her abstinence as the results of her tests have all been negative. She argues that further random testing would be unnecessarily intrusive and humiliating. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Brunet, also admitted the alleged facts. However, he vehemently denied his daughter's allegations of physical abuse and deeply resents the Director of Youth Protection's continued involvement with the family.

He otherwise agrees that his daughter live with her mother and remains open to seeing her when she is ready. [ 7 ] The child, assisted by Me Sicotte Ouellet, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated November 18, 2013; D-2: Child's Psychological Evaluation, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated March 12, 2014; D-3: Addendum to Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated March 17, 2014. [ 9 ] In

summary, the child's return to her mother's care appears to be beneficial for her, although the allegations of physical abuse by her father were deemed unfounded. [ 10 ] The child's propensity to distort the facts was referred to in the previous judgment. In addition, a more recent psychological assessment indicates that she will require services to help her deal with a number of difficulties including signs of depression, emotional problems and learning disabilities. [ 11 ] As summarized in the conclusions of the assessment: X is a shy girl who demonstrates a need for, and enjoys individual attention.

Her demeanour and well developed splinter skills mask her actual difficulties. X's profile is one of intellectual deficits, visual – spatial and language processing disabilities, attention deficit and emotional vulnerability. Overall intellectual development, verbal and perceptual reasoning are in the Extremely Low range – a moderate intellectual delay. X is literal in

interpretation and has difficulty with inference and nuance. She displays a degree of learned helplessness. Her low frustration tolerance and tendency to give up easily is understandable in light of the challenges she has experienced in her home life and in her achievement at school. In addition to the deficits in her profile it is expected that her performance is affected by the fact that she has not been emotionally available for learning.

She has indications of depression. [1] [ 12 ] Hopefully the father will manage to overcome his resentment and collaborate with the social follow-up in his daughter's interest. [ 13 ] 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 child's interest. [ 14 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her parents' care, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that contact with her father will be encouraged and TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents agree that the child will reside with her mother; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from making any denigrating comments about each other in the child's presence; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents and the child collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 20 ] PROHIBITS any direct or indirect contact between the child and C; [ 21 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents ensure that the recommendations that appear in the assessments done by Dr.

Sarah Fraser and Psychologist [Social Worker 2], respectively, are followed TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that [Social Worker 3] has recommended a referral for the child to CROM as well as an adapted program in school; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access information from treating professionals regarding participation and attendance for the mother and child TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parties' consent; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Camille Champeval / AC7059 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Émilie Sicotte Ouellet / AS0DN1 Attorney for the child Me Richard Brunet / AZ9927 Attorney for the father TD/vl