2013 QCCQ 19660, 2013 QCCQ 19660

Protection de la jeunesse — 138325 2013 QCCQ 19660 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-027669-134 / 525-41-027670-132 Date: November 20, 2013 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2006 In the case of: Y Born on […], 2007 [Intervenante 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE , Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 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 provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 20, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X and his brother Y , who are seven and six years old, respectively, based a serious risk of neglect, as well as s erious behavioural disturbances regarding the younger child . [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motions dated August 27, 2013 are as follows: In the case of both X and Y: 3.1. there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child's basic needs with respect to food, hygiene, clothing and lodging, or in failing to give the child the care required by the child's physical and mental health, or not allowing the child to receive such care, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) as relevant information, the mother has a schizo affective disorder and is followed by a psychiatrist;

b) the mother cannot be left unsupervised with the child;

c) the father has been in prison since the end of August 2010 for transporting stolen goods, but the father has a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1981;

d) the child and sibling have been under the care of the maternal grandmother since 2010 without any formal legal documents;

e) the mother is unable to set limits for the child;

f) the mother has access to the child in the presence of the maternal uncles; In addition, regarding X: 3.2. the child has serious behavioural disturbances and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child has been exhibiting aggressive behaviours at school with the staff and other children;

b) in the beginning of the present youth protection intervention, both parents declared that they were unaware about the child's difficulties in school;

c) the maternal grandmother also stated that she was unaware of the child's problems in school;

d) the child needs to access services in the community in order to deal with his difficult behaviors; 3.3. as relevant information the family is known to the Director of Youth Protection since 2006 and many reports were made with regards to serious risk of neglect, the mother's mental health issues, lack of supervision and physical abuse; 3.4. the father had custody of the child before he was incarcerated (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). As for Y: 3.2. the child has serious behavioural disturbances and the parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the child has been exhibiting aggressive behaviours at school with the staff and other children;

b) the child has been suspended from school and could only attend half days;

c) in the beginning of the present youth protection intervention, both parents declared that they were unaware about the child's difficulties in school;

d) the maternal grandmother also stated that she was not aware of the child's problems in school until the suspension;

e) the child needs to access services in the community in order to deal with his difficult behaviors; 3.3. as relevant information the family is known to the Director of Youth Protection since 2006 and many reports were made with regards to serious risk of neglect, the mother's mental health issues, lack of supervision and physical abuse; 3.4. the father had custody of the child before he was incarcerated (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the children remain entrusted to the care of their maternal grandmother, Mrs.

C, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motions and expressed her consent to the children's continued entrustment to their grandmother. However, she added that she now recognizes her need for medication and has been taking it diligently.

She feels that the supervision of her visits with the children is unnecessary. [ 6 ] The father, who also chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. He confirmed that he has no concerns regarding the quality of the care provided to the children by their grandmother.

However, he indicated that he would eventually like the boys returned to his care when he is released and would like more frequent telephone calls and visits until then. [ 7 ] Me Hamel, on behalf of the children, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection and added that required health care services should be ordered for the children. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-3 as evidence: D-1: Copy of the children's birth certificates; D-2: Court Report, prepared by [Intervenante 1], dated July 29, 2013; D-3: Addendum, prepared by [Intervenante 1]. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes most of the facts alleged in support of the motions.

[ 10 ] The mother acknowledges that she needs to take her medication diligently in order to address her mental health issues. She claims that her situation is sufficiently stabilized to make the supervision of her visits with the children unnecessary.

However, she could not substantiate her claims and has refused the worker's request for authorization to communicate with her treating physician. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, the worker's position that supervision is warranted is well-founded, especially considering the family's history of prior involvement with youth protection services as summarized in the report: In December 2009, a signalement was retained by CJ A due to serious risk of neglect and lack of supervision due to Ms. A not responsibly addressing her mental health concerns. The evaluation revealed that Ms.

A was not consistent in seeking treatment follow up regarding her diagnosis, that Ms. A may become disconnected from reality, suffer from auditory and visual hallucinations as well as neglect her hygiene when she does not take her medication. Furthermore, Ms. Chales accidentally burned X's stomach with a cigarette and it was reported that Ms. A had punched X on the nose. The security and development of the children however were not deemed compromised as evidence suggested that Mr. B was a protective factor who did not leave the children unsupervised with Ms. A.

In December 2010, a signalement was retained due to concerns revolving around Ms. A mental health and refusal of treatment and services and the children being left under her care unsupervised. The evaluation revealed that Mr. B was currently incarcerated for an undetermined period of time. The children were then entrusted to the care of the maternal grandmother and the file was closed with CJ A. [1] [ 12 ] As for the father, he has been incarcerated since 2010 and appears to express remorse for his actions.

He remains committed to his sons and they also appear attached to their father who proved to be a protective factor in their young lives: X reported that the last time he's seen his father was a year ago when he visited him at the prison.

X reported that he misses his father very much and wants to live with him again. […] Y also expressed that he misses his father. [2] [ 13 ] The father asked that efforts be made to have the children visit him and asked that telephone contacts be facilitated since he claimed that his prior attempts to call the children were unsuccessful. [ 14 ] The maternal grandmother appeared to have no objections to facilitating the calls and there does not seem to be any conflict between the maternal grandmother and the father.

On the contrary, he expressed gratitude for the care she provides to his sons. [ 15 ] However, the boys, particularly Y, display negative attention seeking behavior, especially outside the home and further investigation is needed to identify the causes: Due to several incidents of aggression with Y at school, Y has been transferred to an alternative school for elementary children, A at École A. The school will help address Y's defiant behaviours and slowly reintegrate him back to his regular school setting.

The father has also signed consents for Y to be assessed by school professionals and a referral from the family physician was obtained in order for Y to undergo a psychiatric assessment either at the A Hospital, the B Hospital or C Hospital. [3] [ 16 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well- founded and that the measures are in the children's interest. [ 17 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children, X and Y , are compromised under

section 38 b) 2) Youth Protection Act as well as under

section 38

f) of the Youth Protection Act in the case of Y; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 20 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to the care of their maternal grandmother, Mrs. C; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision, as long as deemed necessary; [ 22 ] ORDERS that telephone calls between the children and their father be organized once a week, with the assistance of the Director of Youth Protection Delegate, who will ensure that an appropriate

schedule is agreed upon between the maternal grandmother and the father so that the calls occur or a regular, predictable basis, at a convenient time for all involved, taking into account the children's schedules, the maternal grandmother's availability and any restrictions that may affect the father; [ 23 ] ORDERS that contacts between the children and their father be encouraged; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father has suggested two volunteers, his brother and a friend, who could be available to provide transportation for the children to the visits with their father; [ 25 ] ORDERS that contacts between the children and their father occur at least once a month, as long as transportation is available and that the Director of Youth Protection's verifications regarding the volunteers are satisfactory; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father expects to be released in March 2014 and that as of March 2014, contacts between the children and their father will be encouraged, taking into account developments in the family's situation;

[ 27 ] AUTHORIZES contacts between the children and their mother at the mother's residence in the presence of a third party approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children benefit from health care services they may require, more particularly, that Y benefit from a psychiatric assessment, as soon as possible, and that he benefit from any services that may be recommended as a result; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother follow through with services in the community to address her mental health issues and follow through with her treating professionals recommendations; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of her undertaking to do so; [ 31 ] ORDERS that support services in the community be accessed for the children in order to address their problematic behaviours at school; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain relevant information from service providers or professionals involved with the family regarding participation and attendance; [ 33 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of each parent's consent that the maternal grandmother be authorized to sign any consent forms for the children if the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay; [ 34 ] AUTHORIZES the maternal grandmother, Mrs.

C, to sign any documents required for the children's medical, educational, recreational and travel needs in the event that the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection inform the parents accordingly; [ 36 ] ORDERS the maternal grandmother to ensure that the children are not physically disciplined and are appropriately supervised at all times; [ 37 ] ORDERS that both parents fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet the delegate upon request; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for Batshaw Youth and Family Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y , to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Adelia Ferreira / AF4558 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Robert Hamel / AH4614 Attorney for the children TD/vl