2013 QCCQ 8545, 2013 QCCQ 8545

Protection de la jeunesse — 131914 2013 QCCQ 8545 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000403-097 DATE: April 19, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2002 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at […] in City B, district A (Quebec) […] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (1) and (2) and 75, Y P.A. , R.S.Q. chap.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This written judgment follows the oral statement given by this Court at the end of the audience of February 26, 2012. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to revise the decision rendered by McKenna J. on May 10, 2011, concerning X, born on […] 2002.

The applicant is seeking a placement of the child in a rehabilitation center for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The mother and the child are both present and are each represented by their lawyer. [ 4 ] The application is not contested by the parties but the mother disagrees with the applicant concerning two specifics recommendations: • The presence of a third party during the contacts child-mother; • The withdrawal of certain attributes of parental authority. [ 5 ] The child and the mother admit all the allegations of the motion. [ 6 ] The Court considers that following the admissions and the testimonies heard there is preponderant evidence of the following facts.

The facts [ 7 ] Youth Protection Services have been involved in the family's life since February 2007. In 2007, a voluntary measure was signed. The child stayed with the maternal grandmother while the mother had to go in a detoxification center for her alcohol problem. The mother went to the centre and the Youth Protection Services tried many times to integrate the child with her but without success.

The mother was still struggling with alcohol abuse and a violent relationship with a man. [ 8 ] Despite the involvement of the Director of Youth Protection in the family's life the maternal grandmother remained the main caregiver for the child. [ 9 ] On January 28, 2009, Ouellet J. declared that the security and development of the child were endangered due to the mother's way of life. The child was entrusted to her grandmother. [ 10 ] On July 24, 2009, Grimard J. reviewed that judgment following some sort of neglect and abuse allegations made by the child concerning her grandparents.

The child was entrusted to a foster family for a period of one year. On September 16, 2010, Laflamme J. extended this decision for the same reasons. [ 11 ] During those judicial measures the child went in two foster homes, one for two weeks with her brother and then with B and C. [ 12 ] On May 10, 2011, McKenna J. entrusted the child to a foster family until she reaches her majority more specifically to C. [ 13 ] Since last September the child has changed foster family three times because of her behaviour.

On January 18, 2013, the Court ordered a provisional foster care of the child in a rehabilitation center for a period of thirty days and extended that order for another thirty

days until the next Court hearing. [ 14 ] The child is now 10 years old. Since last year her emotional state deteriorated as well as her behaviour. [ 15 ] In school she disturbed the other students, did not want to comply with authority and was aggressive verbally and sometimes physically. Despite meetings with all people involved in the child's life the situation did not improve much. [ 16 ] In June 2012, the child started to scratch herself with her nails on her arms and started talking to kill herself but had no plan. In the middle of November she starts talking about suicide again.

During that period of time the Director of Youth Protection had to go school at least every week to see the child about suicidal ideas. [ 17 ] On November 2012, the child has been aggressive with another child residing with the foster family where she was living with. She refused to comply with the family's rule and said that she wanted to go in a center. [ 18 ] She also threatened to kill herself but there was no plan. An evaluation was made and revealed that there was sexual play between the child and another girl residing in the foster family. The child wanted that situation to stop.

The child was entrusted for 48 hours to the rehabilitation center in City B and afterwards placed in another foster family. [ 19 ] The psychologist also started to meet the child with her mother in the same time since the child was asking a lot of questions concerning her past and her family members. [ 20 ] It went well during Christmas time in the foster family until the child started misbehaving in school again when the school starts in January 2013. She also kept on threatening to kill herself regularly but she had no plan. [ 21 ] On January 15, 2013, the situation deteriorated.

The child did not want to comply with school staff. She sang during class time, she went and opened the door, she disturbed the classroom and even threw a chair. [ 22 ] The school's educator met with her and considered that there was a suicidal risk. The child did not want to make an agreement not to kill or hurt herself. Measures were then taken by the Centre Jeunesse to ensure the child's security in the foster family. [ 23 ] The next day the social worker met the child at school. The child was disorganised did not stop crying and kept on saying that she will kill herself soon. She was scratched on her arm.

For her own safety she was placed in a rehabilitation center in City C. [ 24 ] Since her placement in the rehabilitation center in City C the child had difficulties. Sometimes she refused to respect rules. She had to be restrained once because she hit one of the social workers. She was disrespectful and tested the limits. [ 25 ] On the other end she did not threaten to kill herself since her placement. She also did her homework sent to her by her old school, A school. [ 26 ] In February 2013, the child met D r Lamontagne who is a pedo-pediatrician.

According to the doctor the child need to be evaluated. [ 27 ] The mother's situation is still unstable. Since 2011, she changes residence regularly. She is not easy to reach and that is why the applicant asks the Court to grant her some attributes of parental authority in order to carry out some day-to-day procedures for the child. [ 28 ] According to the mother since September 2012, she is more stable because she lives in the same area. According to her she is now easy to reach. [ 29 ] The mother and her current boyfriend do not have a steady relationship. She leaves him then goes back with him.

Their relationship is tainted by a history of violence and alcohol and drug abuse. [ 30 ] Her boyfriend is presently incarcerated and should be released from jail in April 2013. For now the mother intends to get back with him and to live with him. [ 31 ] Since August 2012, the mother is more involved in her daughter's life. She is cooperating with the Youth Protection workers. [ 32 ] The bond between the mother and the child is present but has been weakened in the past because of the mother's instability.

Her mother's instability and the feeling of rejection have affected the child. [ 33 ] The biological father is not recognized legally. The child has met him on a few occasions while she was living with her grandmother. He is not involved in the child's life. The bond between the father and the child is weak but nevertheless she wants to see him and hopes he will contact the Social Services to get involved in her life. [ 34 ] The bond between the grandmother and the child is strong. Since the child is at the rehabilitation center she called her grandmother almost every day.

Analysis and decision [ 35 ] The Court acknowledges that the mother since September 2013 is more stable and supportive for her daughter. [ 36 ] The mother wants to be involved in her daughter's life and tighten the bond that exists between them. She is aware that her daughter has suffered and is still suffering because of her instability. She is ready to work the relationship on the child's pace. [ 37 ] Concerning her daughter's personal issues the mother admits that she has difficulty to answer her daughter's questions because it brings her back to her own relationship with her mother.

[ 38 ] The mother asks the Court to maintain the supervised contacts with her daughter but without the presence of a third party. The mother explains to the Court that she doesn't trust the Social Services who according to her, judge her on her past issues. She wants to keep all her parental attributes because she says she is stable now and easily reachable. [ 39 ] The Court considers that it is to soon to grant the mother's requests. The Court acknowledges that the mother's situation has improved and that she is more stable.

However this stability is recent and the child is still facing serious personal issues and she needs a mother who is stable. [ 40 ] The Court is also very concerned by the mother's relationship with her boyfriend. This is an ongoing situation for years tainted by violence and alcohol and drug abuse.

It is to soon to know how the relationship will evolve after the boyfriend will be released from jail. [ 41 ] There is preponderant evidence that the child is facing serious personal issues and that her situation has deteriorated despite the help she has received. [ 42 ] Additional assessments by a psychologist as well as a pedo-psychiatrist will be done to evaluate the child's situation.

The child's former psychologist recommended an additional assessment since she thought that maybe the child was hiding a depression. [ 43 ] There is also preponderant evidence that the child is no more safe in a foster family because of her recurrent suicidal ideations as well as her behaviour issues. [ 44 ] For all these reasons the Court considers that the applicant recommendations are appropriate, reasonable and in the child's best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 45 ] Grants the petition; [ 46 ] declares that the security and development of X, born on […] 2002, are still in danger; [ 47 ] Entrusts the child in a rehabilitation center for a period of one year; [ 48 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the mother until the child reaches the age of majority; [ 49 ] Orders that the child receives assessments and follow-up by a psychologist, pedo-psychiatrist or any other specialist required in her situation as long as deemed necessary; [ 50 ] Orders that the visits be authorized in a foster family while the child is placed at the rehabilitation center in order to allow contacts with the siblings and with the maternal grandmother and will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, frequency and modalities; [ 51 ] orders that the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, frequency and modalities and be in presence of a third party as long as deemed necessary; [ 52 ] Orders that the child attend a school or another place of learning; [ 53 ] Orders that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and be granted to the Director of Youth Protection (per example: to get a birth certificate, medical card, passport to travel outside of Canada, an authorization for medical care, school activities, sports, etc.); [ 54 ] Orders that the information can be exchanged between the different workers involved in the child's life and in her best interest; [ 55 ] Orders that any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 56 ] Entrusts the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection at Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the child Me Sylvie Gourd, attorney for the mother

Date of hearing: February 26, 2013