2012 QCCQ 13575, 2012 QCCQ 13575

2012 QCCQ 13575 Protection de la jeunesse — 12435 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] No: 525-41-025177-114 DATE: February 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2011 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ 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 gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of February 10, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the child declared compromised under

section 38, paragraph b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act , as there is a serious risk that the parents cannot provide for the child’s basic needs. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The mother has been known to youth protection for over ten years, more particularly : . this is the mother’s fourth child; . the mother has an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution and transiency and her three other children, with whom she has had no contacts for years, were removed from her care given her instability; • Both parents have a history of criminal activity and of incarcerations; • The mother had been staying in the [Center A] mother-child program for five months up until October 7, 2011, following conditions ordered by the criminal court; • Information is to the effect that the mother was a reluctant participant in the [Center A] drug rehabilitation program; • On October 7, 2011, the mother was permitted by [Center A] to go out with the baby and was expected to return by 8:00 p.m.;

• In the evening, a missing person’s report was made to the police as the mother had not returned to [Center A] as expected; • The police found the baby in the home of a friend of the mother’s in the small hours of the morning on October 8, 1011, while the mother was using crack cocaine in a house nearby; • On October 8, 2011, the mother was arrested by the police and brought back into detention where she is expected to serve several months of incarceration as she faces charges of armed robbery for events that occurred during her pregnancy; • The baby was entrusted to a paternal aunt and uncle where she remains to date, with both parents’ consent; • The father, who was recently incarcerated, indicated that he prefers that his sister take care of the baby. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to the care of her paternal aunt, Ms.

C, for six months. Taking judicial notice that during this period the mother will be completing her inpatient program at [Center A] and that the child will gradually be spending more time with the mother at [Center A]. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion. She testifies that she is now at step four of six of the treatment program of [Center A], which she will be completing in May or June 2012. She wishes for her daughter to be entrusted to her care.

She states that in the mother-child program she will receive all the help that she needs from the educators and the nurse on staff. [ 6 ] The mother says that having her daughter with her motivates her and helps her better care for X. She also says that she is ready to do everything needed to have her daughter in her care full time. After she completes the inpatient program she intends to integrate the semi- supervised apartment program offered by [Center A] for one or two years.

As for her criminal charges, the case is reviewed every three months and she will not be incarcerated, as long as she continues with the program at [Center A]. [ 7 ] The father admits certain facts alleged in the motion. The father states that his daughter receives good care in his sister’s home. However, he also agrees for the child to be with her mother. The father is asking to have weekend visits with his daughter. [ 8 ] The parental capacity assessment of the mother was done by Dr. Niki Saros, psychologist.

The results of the cognitive assessment reflected good verbal reasoning ability and weaknesses in abstract conceptual processing, as well as limits in attention and concentration. Therefore, the mother will require assistance with planning and problem solving, as well as using appropriate judgement to make decisions. [ 9 ] The psychologist notes that the mother has taken active steps to modify her past behaviours and to maintain her sobriety by participating in a residential substance abuse program. She is motivated to stabilize her life, in order to make it possible for her to parent her daughter.

However, the psychologist states that the mother’s capacity to parent her child will depend on her motivation to remain in a residential substance abuse program. [ 10 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. [Social Worker 1], youth protection delegate, and read the reports the Director of Youth Protection filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the mother has made great efforts to change her lifestyle and that she wishes to parent her daughter.

The mother admits that she made mistakes in the past and that she was not in a position to care for her other children. [ 11 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] explains that the child has been visiting her mother at [Center A] two days per week since December 21, 2011. Two case planning meetings took place at [Center A] in the presence of the mother. At this point, [Center A] staff recommends a gradual increase in contacts between the mother and the child, depending on the mother’s progress in the program.

This means that the child will soon be spending three days a week with her mother and should be fully integrated in the mother-child program by June 2012. [ 12 ] The mother files in the Court record a letter from [Center A] dated February 9, 2012, in which her educator, [Social Worker 2], writes that the mother has been promoted to step four of the program, which means she will have more responsibilities in the community. When it comes to nurturing her daughter, the mother has shown herself to be a very good mother.

She is affectionate and attentive to her daughter's basic needs. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to her paternal aunt’s care for a period of six months. During this period, the child will gradually be integrated to the mother-child program of [Center A]. The current situation is fragile given the mother’s past lifestyle and addiction to drugs. Furthermore, X is very vulnerable due to her young age.

The mother must follow through with the intervention program at [Center A] in order to address her difficulties and develop a strong support system, which will enable her to parent her child. [ 14 ] As for the father, he must collaborate with DYP and keep the youth workers informed of his situation and of his contacts with his daughter. [ 15 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are compromised. [ 16 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the child, X under

section 38, paragraph b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to her paternal aunt, Ms. C, for a period of six months; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by Director of Youth Protection;

[ 21 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to follow through on the recommendations of the parental capacity assessment and the psychological assessment conducted by Nikki Saros; [ 23 ] ORDERS the mother to participate and complete a substance abuse treatment program; [ 24 ] ORDERS the father to undergo a parental capacity assessment and a psychological assessment and follow the recommendations; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents to fully collaborate with the social follow-up, including meeting with the Director when requested; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her parents for a period of six months; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on February 15, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Guy Luc Grondin Counsel for the child Me Daniel Bouchard Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: February 10, 2012