2021 QCCQ 12295, 2021 QCCQ 12295

Protection de la jeunesse — 216799 2021 QCCQ 12295 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] “Youth Division” No.: 525-41-030501-159 DATE: July 8, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X Born on [...], 2014 Director of Youth Protection Applicant -and- A -and- B Impleaded parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 Y.P.A. ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A. ).

OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Twins X and Y are now seven years old. [ 2 ] On July 22, 2020, the Court authorized the children’s reintegration with their mother after four years of placement in alternative living environments. [1] [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) asks the Court to review the decision entrusting the children to their mother due to the mother’s difficulty meeting the particular supervision needs of the children. [ 4 ] The Director recommends that the children be placed with a foster family for six months with a period of gradual reintegration with their mother as of the fourth month. [ 5 ] The children have been provisionally placed with a foster family since May 27, 2021, further to a police intervention at the mother’s home. [ 6 ] Since then, the foster family has been ensuring that the children have transportation to their school so that they can finish the school year there, but the distance is a significant obstacle to them continuing to attend that school next September. [ 7 ] The mother is insistent on this aspect and seeks the children’s return in August, before school starts. [2] ISSUE [ 8 ] Is the persistence and intensity of the children’s oppositional behaviour towards their mother an obstacle to their immediate return to her environment? [ 9 ] The Court answers this question in the affirmative.

To continue their development with their mother, the children must accept her authority, and the mother must be able to exercise her authority consistently and with an understanding of the children’s needs. [ 10 ] The uncertainty regarding whether the children may remain in the same school as of next August caused by their placement with a foster family must not be an impediment to meeting the children’s needs for supervision and emotional security, which take priority.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS [ 11 ] The children display challenging behaviour at home: they scream, hit each other, hit their mother, spit on her, and resist her authority. The mother confirms this behaviour; she testified that it started suddenly in October 2020, whereas everything was going well before that. [ 12 ] On March 24, 2021, the children told the youth worker that their mother hits them in the face and on the arms. The children repeated that they had been hit when the police intervened at the home on May 25, 2021.

The mother minimizes both the frequency and the intensity of these physical interventions. [ 13 ] Although the children did not specify the frequency of these physical interventions, they are not isolated acts, as the mother claims.

The Court characterizes the statements made by the children to the police officers and to the youth worker as reliable, in view of the following: - In a consistent and honest manner, they clearly associate the physical punishment (being hit on their arms and in the face) by their mother with their bad behaviour; - They observe and report their mother’s discomfort following these acts; - The mother minimizes these acts but does not deny them; - The children are encouraged not to disclose these incidents. [ 14 ] On May 25, 2021, the police officers noted, [3] as the youth worker had in February 2021, that the apartment was dirty and in a significant state of disarray: the children’s room was cluttered with toys and piles of laundry, there was cat excrement on the floor, and there was leftover food on piles of laundry in the kitchen. [ 15 ] The police officers found packets on the night stand in the mother’s bedroom with traces of what appeared to be cocaine.

When questioned, the mother merely said that the children had been visiting their maternal uncle. [ 16 ] The evidence reveals that in February 2021, the mother refused to submit to a drug test, that on June 15, 2021, a drug test came back positive for cocaine, and that on June 30, 2021, the mother failed to appear to take a previously scheduled drug test. [ 17 ] The mother participated well in the Positive Parenting program; in March 2021, she agreed to work with a team composed of a youth worker and a home educator because she was overwhelmed by the children’s behaviour. [ 18 ] Due to a staffing shortage, it was not possible to implement the educator’s services immediately. [ 19 ] Individual follow-up at the CLSC was offered to the mother, but it was not well sustained for reasons caused by both the mother and the caseworker. [ 20 ] Since the children’s provisional placement with a foster family (because the maternal uncle was not able to take them in again), services are being put in place: the children attend art therapy sessions, a CLSC educator is providing follow-up, and the family is on a priority waiting list for family therapy provided by the Famille Nouvelle organization. [ 21 ] The children visit their mother from Friday to Sunday, and to date, these visits have been positive. [ 22 ] The youth worker and the mother confirm that the children like their school; they are doing well there, respond to the supervision provided, and see their friends. [ 23 ] According to the youth worker, attending this school meets the children’s needs for stability and socialization.

For that reason, everything possible should be done so that the children can remain at the same school despite the distance between it and the foster family’s home. [ 24 ] The children have affection for their mother, but this emotional relationship is impacted by years of exposure to conjugal violence, repeated relationship breakdowns, and prolonged placements with their maternal uncle. [ 25 ] Their reactive, disrespectful, and aggressive behaviour towards their mother, who is trying to assert her authority, is a reflection of the children’s great insecurity and resentment. [ 26 ] In the face of the intensity of these manifestations, the mother intervenes physically with the children. [ 27 ] The mother invokes the fact that she did not receive services following the honeymoon period after the children were returned to her. [ 28 ] While it is true that the evidence reveals that there was a lack of staff to meet the mother’s and the children’s needs for support, it was also established that the mother expresses her distress when faced with the situation and then minimizes it the next day. [ 29 ] Full responsibility for two defiant children is very onerous and has its share of challenges, unforeseen events, stress, and self- sacrifice. [ 30 ] The mother uses cocaine to mark a break from that task, deal with missing the children, or restore her energy. [ 31 ] The use of that substance to meet such needs cannot coexist with a consistent and appropriate response to the intense need for supervision and security of two seven-year old children.

[ 32 ] The children’s return to their mother must take place without cocaine use and after significant intervention concerning the family dynamic. [ 33 ] Services are being put in place since July 5, 2021; the mother’s active and transparent participation is a prerequisite for the success of the children’s planned return; their coming and going cannot be repeated. [ 34 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still in danger; [ 37 ] REVISES the decision rendered on November 13, 2020; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the child in foster care until December 22, 2021; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the child remain entrusted to her actual foster home; [ 40 ] ORDERS the mother to participate actively to the measures; [ 41 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent to undergo random drug testing; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the mother undergo random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] ORDERS if the psycho-social services are in place and if the random drug testing results are negative to cocaine or other hard drugs, the progressive reintegration of the child to the care of her mother beginning October 30, 2021; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by Director of Youth Protection, including supervision, but that they minimally take place every weekend, Friday until Sunday at 5:00 p.m.; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child receive therapeutic support services, namely art therapy; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the family be provided with family therapy from “Famille nouvelle”; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of a psychoeducator or homebound educator able to provide the services when the mother and the child are together; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the child receive the necessary medical support following the recommendations made in the psychological assessment dated August 17, 2020; [ 49 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the child and her father, Mr.

B; [ 50 ] PROHIBITS the mother to put the child in contact with Mr. B; [ 51 ] WITHDRAWS from the father the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority pertaining to health, education, application for a passport and travel authorisations, and GRANTS the exercise of those attributes of parental authority exclusively to the mother, Ms.

A; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo a psychiatric evaluation; [ 53 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share information with the professionals involved with the family; [ 54 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to take every step possible to ensure that the child remain in her actual school, attending this school being in her best interest and respecting her need for stability; [ 55 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family; [ 56 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 57 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child 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.

SIGNED IN TOWN B ______________________ MARTINE NOLIN, J.C.Q. Mtre Esther Sterling Counsel for the DYP

Mtre Paule Ouellette Counsel for the child Mtre Lilian Stah Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: July 8, 2021 MN/if