2017 QCCQ 8502, 2017 QCCQ 8502

Protection de la jeunesse — 173398 2017 QCCQ 8502 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-000694-049 DATE: February 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A and City B, District A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in City B, District A Mother and B, residing and domiciled in City B, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( sections 95(1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act , CQLR c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (D.Y.P.) submitted a motion for revision of the order rendered on January 23, 2008 concerning the child X, born on [...], 2004. [ 2 ] The parents were present at the hearing and disagreed with the recommendations of the applicant.

They asked the Court to review the decision and to have their daughter back at home. [ 3 ] The child was represented by a lawyer and agreed with the recommendations submitted by the applicant. [ 4 ] On January 23, 2008, the honourable Normand Bonin rendered the following conclusions: [65] FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONNED REASONS, THE COURT: [66] AS TO SIASSIE: [67] GRANTS the petition; [68] MAINTAINS that her security and development are in danger because of the neglect she is suffering from her parents and also because she is a victim of psysical ill-treatment and reject by her parents; [69] ORDERS that she be placed in a foster home until majority; [70] ORDERS that both parents collaborate with the Social Services; [71] AUTHORIZES access rights to her parents and brothers and sisters as long as the terms and conditions are closely supervised by the Youth Protection services; [72] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that it be assessed whether a change of foster homes would be appropriate; [73] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the parents and the children until their majority; [74] ORDERS that the child receive the medical care she requires; [75] ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of the enactment;

[76] ORDERS that the clerk of the Court serve this decision to the Commission de la protection des droits de la jeunesse et de la personne and STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the Commmission ( sic ) regularly check on the follow-up to be made by the Director of Youth Protection in this file; [77] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the D.Y.P. for the purpose of executing the enactment. [ 5 ] The evidence showed that the behaviour of the child had deteriorated to the point that the foster family was not able to handle her. [ 6 ] Mainly, the child refused to accept authority and did not come back to the foster home at night.

She consumed alcohol and did not attend school regularly. [ 7 ] On September 19, 2016, the youth ran away. She was met at school, she admitted that she was under the influence of alcohol and she ran away. [ 8 ] After this event, the foster family decided to give up on the child because they were overwhelmed by her behaviour.

The child was entrusted to another family. [ 9 ] A few days later, the applicant was informed that the child engaged in problematic behaviour at school and was not always present. [ 10 ] On September 21, 2016, the new foster family informed the applicant that the child had not come home and that they did not want to foster the child anymore. They wanted to help the child but they thought that kind of misbehaviour could be a bad influence on their own children. [ 11 ] The youth was placed in a group home until November 28, 2016.

The Court ordered the parents to have supervised contact at least once a month. [ 12 ] She integrated very well into the group home but showed some behavioural issues and lack of respect of authority. [ 13 ] X is a 12-year-old who has undergone severe neglect, physical abuse and emotional rejection. She has also been through multiple placements during the last year. [ 14 ] She developed behavioural issues during recent months. [Social Worker 1], the applicant, mentioned in her Revision Report that an attachment disorder and developmental delays were suspected.

A medical and psychological assessment will be necessary to confirm such diagnoses and probably to help to meet the needs of the youth. [ 15 ] Currently, the youth needs structure and a safe environment. She needs professional help to teach her to control her emotions and comply with authority. [ 16 ] The parents are not able to meet the child’s needs. They still have neglect issues and display unstable parental behaviour. The Court also considered the lack of significant bond between the mother and the child mentioned in the last Court judgment.

Judge Bonin mentioned: [34] The lawyer of the parents produced a psychological evaluation of the parents of Y ans X. In the expert evaluation, the psychologist reports that he never felt any feelings of love or attachment from the mother toward Y and X. He strongly points out thet Mrs. B does not talk too much about her children, that she says over and over again that she will not let Youth Protection win over her. The psychologist makes the following comments about the mother: Pas un mot de tendresse, de reconnaissance, de solicitude.

Il est clair pour nous que Madame n’a pas investit ses deux enfants mais, par leur entremise, veut donner une leçon aux intervenants (…) Nous ne savons pas comment elle investit et s’occupe de ses autres enfants mais, dans le cas de Y et de X, ces deux enfants ne sont pas investies pour ells-mêmes et nous ne voyons pas d’expression de veritable attachement, ni un discour qui laisse entrevoir un “bonding”. Au contraire, Y semble être investee comme une enfant qui n’a rien pour se laisser aimer.

Une de nos hypotheses pour comprendre l’acharnement de Madame de récupérer ses enfants est son désir de “punir” les intervenants qui sont vus très négativement par Madame. ( Translation) Not a word of affection, recognition or care. In our mind, it is clear that the mother hes not developed significant ties with her two children, but through them, she wants to teach a lesson to the workers involved. (Translation) We are not aware of the kind of relationship she has developed with her other children, but in Y and X’s case, the two children are not related to personally and truly for who they are.

To the contrary, Y appears to have been related to as a child who has nothing for which to be loved. One of our assumptions in our attempt to understand the mother’s relentlessness in wanting the girls back, is her wish to “punish” the workers involved, of whom she has a very negative opinion. [ 17 ] The parents did not collaborate with the D.Y.P. They asked only for the return of X to their home without any investment or effort to change the past situation. [ 18 ] The evidence does not show that it is in the best interest of the child to return to the care of her parents.

FOR ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS this motion;

[ 20 ] REVIEWS and EXTENDS the decision or order rendered by Judge Normand Bonin on September 12, 2007; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2004, is still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation center chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection center; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of all of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child and the child’s parents report regularly to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services, notably a psychological evaluation with specific consideration for the bond with the parents and the parents’ rights to access to the child; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services concerning their parenting skills issues; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contact between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with respect to the terms, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the contact with the parents and family be increased with the specific condition that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and comply with the conditions imposed by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 31 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the judgment; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the Director of Youth Protection A for the purpose of executing the order; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE , until August 31, 2017. __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Kimon Kling Attorney for the child Mtre. Aubree Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Mtre. Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the parents Date of hearing: November 29, 2016