2021 QCCQ 5739, 2021 QCCQ 5739

Protection de la jeunesse — 212229 2021 QCCQ 5739 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N o : 455-41-001285-204 DATE : February 25, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- B Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting for the revision of the court order rendered on June 18, 2020. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the child X in danger on the grounds of serious risk of physical abuse and serious risk of neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the child to his mother at the exclusion of the father, authorized supervised contacts with his father and recommended some measures to be observed by the parents, and orders a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger. [ 5 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends the Court to order the placement of the child in a foster family to be determined by the Director, to authorise in child’s favor, supervised contacts with his parents according to the modalities and frequency determined with the Director, with possibility of lifting the supervision if the situation allows it, to take notice of the mother’s intention to maintain her personal follow-up in regards of domestic violence and the father’s intention to maintain his personnel follow-up in regard of emotions management, and to order a social follow-up for a period of six month.

Evolution of the situation [ 6 ] The child is entrusted to his mother and the contacts with the father are supervised by the Director according to the judgement rendered by this Court.

[ 7 ] Since June 2020, the mother lives in an apartment in Town A with her three children Y, Z and X. [ 8 ] During the past months, X’s father has been residing temporarily in a trailer located on a campground. [ 9 ] The delegate was recently informed by a mother’s neighbour that the father is often at the apartment, but leaves just before the delegate’s visits. [ 10 ] During a meeting with the child Z on October 8 th , he confirmed that C lives with them, adding that he was the one who woke him up that morning. [ 11 ] When confronted, the mother categorically denied that the father was in contact with the children without supervision. [ 12 ] The mother explains that the father still lives at the campground and only comes to the apartment to shower when she and the children are absent. [ 13 ] The mother adds that the father attends the morning routine via Facetime.

The delegate had warned the mother that she could not allow contacts with Z even via Facetime, considering the court order. [ 14 ] On October 9 th , the mother’s neighbour exhibited a video showing the father on the premises, holding X in his arms, without the presence of any delegate. [ 15 ] The mother and father have not been transparent concerning their relationship and do not respect the court orders. [ 16 ] On October 9, 2020, an immediate protection measure was applied entrusting the child to a foster family and his siblings to another. [ 17 ] On October 13, 2020, the Court rendered a provisional order entrusting the child to a foster home, without any admissions, as the parties agreed to present their evidence on November 19, 2020, at the final hearing. [ 18 ] The contacts with the parents were to be supervised and according to the frequency and modality set by the Director. [ 19 ] On November 19, 2020, the mother had revised her position and did not contest the content of the Director’s reports. [ 20 ] She asked that family members be evaluated to care for Z and Y namely the maternal grandmother.

As for X, she wants him entrusted to her sister. [ 21 ] The father was asking that X be entrusted to the maternal aunt. [ 22 ] The delegate testified that they had considered the maternal grandmother before as a possible significant person to care for the children.

At the time, she had mentioned it was impossible because of her work as a truck driver. [ 23 ] On November 2 nd , she changed her mind and decided that she would quit her job by the end of November. [ 24 ] When met by the delegate, she mentioned that she would also move in with her partner. [ 25 ] When asked if he had any criminal record, she said that he had a DIU and nothing else. [ 26 ] When verified, the man’s criminal record indicates two DIU convictions in 2013 and 2017 and two assaults in 2008 and 2010. [ 27 ] The grandmother also has previous involvement with Youth protection for her own children. [ 28 ] Although the children know their grandmother, they are not requesting to see her. [ 29 ] Considering all this, a positive recommendation is unlikely to come from the Resources Department. [ 30 ] As for the maternal aunt, the parents had refused this possibility at a revision table. [ 31 ] On last November 10 th , the grandmother had called the Director to inform them of a conflict between the mother and her sister about money being stolen. [ 32 ] Although she could be viewed as a good foster home placement, the fact that she has a conflictual relationship with her sister is problematic. [ 33 ] X is a healthy baby.

When he was placed, he exhibited some separation anxiety which was normal for his age. [ 34 ] When consulted for a bronchitis, a doctor from the hospital’s emergency recommended that the child be evaluated for a possible plagiocephaly. [ 35 ] The parents were had regular supervised contacts with the child. The mother every week or two and the father weekly. [ 36 ] The visits have been going very well. The father appears gentle with the baby and no sign of aggressiveness was observed. [ 37 ] Both parents are sensible to the baby’s needs and are responding to the child. No coaching was necessary by the supervisor.

The final hearing

[ 38 ] The hearing was continued on February 25, 2021 when it concluded. [ 39 ] The Director’s final recommendations were as follows: that the child be entrusted to a foster family, for a period of six months, authorizes in the child’s favor, supervised contacts with his parents, according to the frequency and modalities set by the Director, with the possibility of lifting the supervision if the situation allows it, and proposes other measures and a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 40 ] The mother wants X to be entrusted to her sister. [ 41 ] The father wants X to be entrusted to the maternal aunt as well. [ 42 ] The child's lawyer, after hearing the evidence, agrees with the conclusions sought. [ 43 ] The evaluations were not completed for both the grandmother and the aunt for X as they are on a long waiting list. [ 44 ] Still, with what is known, the Director did not recommend either of them as a resource. [ 45 ] To the previous concerns, they added that the Director does not trust the family’s transparency.

Previous court orders had not been respected. [ 46 ] Furthermore, the maternal grandmother does not recognize the father’s aggressive behaviour towards the children. [ 47 ] As for the maternal aunt, there is no emotional bond between the child and her. [ 48 ] She says she is neutral about what is said about the father and what he did to the children. When further questioned, she says that she does not believe the father was violent against the children. [ 49 ] Her working

schedule is in the evening so she would have to have X in daycare at that time. [ 50 ] In cross-examination, when asked about her relationship with the mother, she minimizes their conflictual relationship but admits that one quarrel led to her hitting her sister and criminal charges pressed. [ 51 ] X is well cared for in his foster home and there is a possibility for adoption. [ 52 ] The foster parents for Z and Y are from the CRDI network.

They have four foster children under their care and their own adult son who is profoundly suffering from his ASD. [ 53 ] She is herself a specialised worker for ASD clients. [ 54 ] She states that Z seems to have an intellectual handicap and is currently evaluated by a psychologist to learn his intellectual level. [ 55 ] She describes Y as being different from the ASD children. He can lie, steal, be threatening towards others.

He even threaten other students with a knife in the school bus. [ 56 ] Y has also been mentioning to the foster mother de violent behaviours that he was victim of and that he witnessed. [ 57 ] She mentions that she has to protect the other children in her home from him, that is why she questions her involvement on the long term but will keep him for the current order of six months. [ 58 ] Since his placement, Y has generally been functioning well in school and takes his medication. [ 59 ] Y was evaluated in child psychiatry and diagnosed with ASD. [ 60 ] As for the mother, ever since she moved in her apartment in June 2020, she had not reactivated her follow-up with Horizon pour Elle in her new region. [ 61 ] It was only on December 1 st that she started a follow-up with La Maison Séjour.

She is participating to the follow-up but has missed two over six scheduled meetings. [ 62 ] The father also stopped attending his follow-up so his file was closed with the resource. Although he claims having called Le Seuil A, it has not been possible to verify.

He claims being on a waiting list for services which is very unlikely for this kind of resource. [ 63 ] Despite their signing the agreement in X’s file, both the parents do not recognize the violence from the father on the children. [ 64 ] The Court learns that the mother is pregnant with their second child to be born in [...] 2021. [ 65 ] Since the children have been placed, the couple is living together again. [ 66 ] The father does not recognise having a violent behaviour, only that he yells sometimes.

The mother claims there is no conjugal violence. [ 67 ] As for the supervised contacts with the parents, they take place at the mother’s home, for one and a half hour X alone with his parents and then the same duration of time with his siblings but in his father’s absence.

[ 68 ] The supervision is still necessary as the mother is not always vigilant with the children. Furthermore, the food offered to X is not always appropriate for his age. [ 69 ] The father has been observed as having outbursts toward the mother. She does not react to his behaviour. [ 70 ] Following the visits, the child is destabilised for the next 24 hours. He cries and reacts when the foster mother is out of sight. [ 71 ] Otherwise, X is evolving well in his foster home.

He has started to walk and creates a bond with the foster family. [ 72 ] The plagiocephaly is now resorbed and X will not need a physiotherapy follow-up. [ 73 ] There were three supervised visits organised for Y and the father. There was very little interactions between them and the father concentrates more on his son X. The father has also been observed as being sharp with Y.

Analysis [ 74 ] Despite all the services involved with the family, the progress made by the mother is not sufficient to envisage a return of the children in their mother’s care. [ 75 ] The level of recognition of the father’s impulsivity and violent behaviour is insufficient and her personal follow-up has only but just started again. [ 76 ] The mother is still considered non-protective of her children by her denial. [ 77 ] She still forms a couple with the father who denies his own problems and has only but very recently started a follow-up. [ 78 ] The couple is expecting yet another child next summer and still cannot manage to care for X without exposing him to a serious risk of physical abuse and educational neglect. [ 79 ] Furthermore, the mother and the father will have to improve and develop their parental skills about maintaining a regular routine, stimulation and surveillance of the children. [ 80 ] The grandmother is not a possible resource.

The Court shares the Director’s concerns. [ 81 ] The maternal aunt also must be disregarded. The minimisation of her conflictual relationship with the mother, her non- recognition of the father violence against the children are sufficient to stop the process. Her work

schedule is also of concern as well as her lack of emotional bond with X. [ 82 ] The father has to truly involve himself in a personal follow-up and recognise his violent behaviour towards the Z and Y. [ 83 ] Having read the reports and heard the witness’ testimonies, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives generally way to the final recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS partially the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; REVISES the court order rendered on June 18, 2020 in the present file; ORDERS the placement of the child in a foster family to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with his parents, according to the modalities and frequency determined with the Director of Youth Protection, with the possibility of lifing the supervision if the situation allows it; RECOMMENDS that the mother pursuits her personnel follow-up in regards of domestic violence; RECOMMENDS that the father maintins his personal follow-up in regards of emotions management; ORDERS that the parents participate to the measures set forth to end the compromising situation; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out.

__________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Christine Loubier Represented by Me Sara De Castro Counsel for the DYP M e Caroline Rosa Counsel for the child M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the mother M e Claudel Vachon Counsel for the father Date of hearing: February 25, 2021 Exibits deposed: D-6 Date of written judgment: May 14, 2021