2020 QCCQ 12482, 2020 QCCQ 12482

Protection de la jeunesse — 209149 2020 QCCQ 12482 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000528-209 DATE: December 11, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2020 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] When the mother gives birth to the child, a few months ago, the parents’ two other children are both entrusted to foster families. They were removed from the parents’ care notably because they were neglected. [ 2 ] The child’s situation is reported to the director of youth protection (DYP) the day following her birth. At the outset, the parents agree that the child be temporarily entrusted to a foster family.

She remains there ever since, on a provisional basis. [ 3 ] The DYP now asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child are in danger following a serious risk of neglect. The DYP recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family and that protective measures be ordered until September of 2021. [ 4 ] Child’s counsel agrees with the DYP. [ 5 ] Unsurprisingly, the parents want their child to live with them. The mother testifies about being able to care for the baby. She does not see what her other children’s situation has to do with this one.

The father revokes his counsel’s mandate at the beginning of the hearing. He then decides to leave the courthouse during a recess and prior to testifying. Therefore he does not present evidence. It is obvious, however, that he objects to the child’s placement. [ 6 ] Following the hearing, the Court renders judgment orally and grants the application.

Here are the reasons supporting that decision. [ 7 ] The DYP has been involved with the parents since 2016, while neglect is a recurring problem. [ 8 ] On August 6, 2019, the Court entrusts their older daughter, born in 2016, to a third person until she reaches her majority. On December 4, 2020, the Court orders that their son, who will soon turn 3, remain in his foster family until he comes of age. [ 9 ] Reading the judgments rendered previously in regard to these children sheds light on the parents’ issues. [ 10 ] The mother has serious intellectual limitations.

It is challenging for her to deal with unexpected situations. She has not shown the capacity to care for her older children on a daily basis, even though she can meet their basic needs for limited periods of time.

[ 11 ] The father apparently has some parental capacities, but his lack of cooperation and insight prevent him from learning to play his parental role properly. He is often impulsive and aggressive. He blames others, notably the DYP and foster families who take care of his children, instead of questioning his own attitude and behaviours. Moreover, he sometimes shows aggressiveness toward his spouse. [ 12 ] The parents’ situation fluctuates over time. Nevertheless, they have recurrent issues pertaining to care, stimulation, nutrition and surveillance of their children.

They receive professional help, but since the Court ordered the placement of the children, they have never been able to show enough improvement to have them back to their care. [ 13 ] The parents waste time and energy fighting with the DYP, instead of working with professionals in order to solve their difficulties. Support is available, but the parents do not benefit from it, due to their attitude. It is the case for both parents, but the mother shows a little more cooperation when she is not in the presence of her spouse. [ 14 ] The parents do not trust the DYP, to say the least.

They are also suspicious when it comes to other professionals as well as foster families. Their relationship with people trying to help them is usually acrimonious. Moreover, the parents lack transparency and even honesty when interacting with the DYP. [ 15 ] On numerous occasions, when asked by the DYP, the parents deny the mother’s last pregnancy. Following the child’s birth, the DYP is advised and workers come to meet with the parents at the hospital. They inform the parents that they will evaluate the situation. Meanwhile, the child needs to be in a safe environment.

The parents are unable to find a suitable place in their extended family which leads to the baby being placed in foster care. [ 16 ] Following the parents’ request, the baby is entrusted to a foster family from the father’s aboriginal community. Workers from Social Services A are in charge of the file. One could hope it would make things easier, since the father has a very difficult time dealing with non-native professionals from the DYP. [ 17 ] Unfortunately, it is not the case. Once again, trust issues arise very quickly. The parents are very suspicious, and it undermines the possibilities to help them.

For instance, they have to fill an intake form in order to receive services, notably financial support. The youth delegate states that it would take a few minutes to complete that task. However, it is yet to be done, because of the parents’ lack of cooperation. [ 18 ] The youth delegate also indicates that the father always questions her intentions when she asks something. She adds that it is difficult to have a conversation with the parents as she feels they hide information from her.

She wishes the parents and herself could work together for the child instead of against one another like the parents do right now. [ 19 ] Both parents obviously need professional help, but it is an ongoing challenge to try to provide them with support. They are reluctant to advice from workers and not transparent in regard to counselling they would receive or not. [ 20 ] Meanwhile, the parents have supervised visits with the child. Sometimes their interaction with the baby is very appropriate.

However, at times they lack basic knowledge, in regard to childcare skills. [ 21 ] There is a lot of work to do for the parents to be able to have the child into their care. It is urgent that the mother work on parenting skills and the father on emotional regulation. Needless to say, that they need help to undertake that task. [ 22 ] Unfortunately, the evidence as well as the parents’ attitude at the hearing lead the Court to foresee that they are not heading toward that outcome.

They devote much energy uttering complaints and criticism in regard to the workers and the foster family, instead of putting themselves in action toward the goal of having their child back. [ 23 ] Even in Court, the father displays a need for control and a flagrant lack of self-control. He decides to leave the courthouse during a recess, prior to the filing of evidence from his part. [ 24 ] The fact that the parents love their daughter is not in dispute.

However, the preponderant evidence convinces the Court that the security and development of that young and thus very vulnerable child are in danger, namely because of the existence of a serious risk of neglect. [ 25 ] The protective measures that the DYP recommends meet the child’s needs and best interest. [ 26 ] The application is therefore well founded. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 b)2 of the youth protection act ; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family designated by the DYP until September 30, 2021; [ 30 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and her parents be determined according to an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP, and in absence of agreement that the visits take place for a minimum of 2 hours once a week; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to benefit from counselling in connection with their personal difficulties;

[ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS the parents to participate actively in the application of the measures ordered; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until September 30, 2021; [ 35 ] 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; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parties concerned by this judgment comply with it. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Bruno-Gabriel Vargas for the mother Mr. B the father Written judgment filed on January 25, 2021