2015 QCCQ 10139, 2015 QCCQ 10139

Protection de la jeunesse — 151478 2015 QCCQ 10139 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-027398-130 DATE : June 1st, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...] THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on June 1 st , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on November 29 th , 2013.

The Director requests that: ▪ the child be maintained in her current confidential foster family for an extended period of six months; ▪ the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be at the discretion of the Director, with supervision if necessary; ▪ the exercise of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and; ▪ the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign all consents for the child including medical, dental, travel and education (sic); ▪ order that a person working for [Youth and Family Centres A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the family for a period of six months.

[ 3 ] On behalf of the mother, her attorney admits essentially all the facts alleged in support of the motion for extension. The mother ignores that the child underwent a speech and language assessment and that the child is not currently at grade level. More important, the mother denies that her collaboration with the Director is "uneven" and that she is not in a position to resume the care of the child. As a matter of fact, the mother wishes for the child to be entrusted back to her care immediately. [ 4 ] On behalf of the father, his attorney admits essentially all the facts alleged in support of the motion.

The father too ignores that the child underwent a speech and language assessment, an audiology exam and that she is not currently at grade level. The father admits that he is not in a position to resume the care of the child and therefore, he is in agreement with the recommendations presented by the Director. [ 5 ] After hearing the evidence submitted, the attorney for the child submits that the witnesses do not contradict the content of the documentary evidence and therefore, he believes that the recommendations of the Director are justified.

CONTEXT The child [ 6 ] The child has remained in the same confidential foster home. In January 2014, she entered a new school, in grade 1. [ 7 ] In December 2013, the mother gave birth to a little girl who, as per a decision rendered by the Honourable Lucie Godin, is entrusted to a foster family. The little sister was placed in the same confidential foster home on December 30 th , 2013. [ 8 ] Due to her difficulty in school, the child was referred, in the spring of 2014, for a psychoeducational assessment in order to obtain a better understanding of her academic potential in school.

The worker summarizes the conclusions of the assessment as follows: "The results of the cognitive assessment indicate that (the child) is in the lower limit of the Bordeline range. Her verbal reasoning skills and her speed of processing are also in the Bordeline range. Her working memory is extremely low. Her nonverbal reasoning skills are in the Low Average range, which is her strength. Moderate-to-significant academic delays were found throughout the academic testing. Math problem solving is her weakest area with a 2-year academic delay.

Her listening comprehension and oral expression skills are also significantly weak. Her reading skills are also poorly developed, which expression skills are also significantly weak. Her reading skills are also poorly developed, which prevented her from completing additional reading and writing subtests as her literacy skills were not adequately developed. Her general memory index is in the extremely low range, which suggests generalized memory impairment and very significant inattention problems and learning impairments were identified.

The behavioral scale that was completed by her homeroom teacher, (...), strongly suggests the presence of an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, combined type, and the results were consistent with an Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It was concluded, that given her challenges (the child) will likely have significant difficulties in a regular classroom." [ 9 ] As the child showed weaknesses in most academic areas, she was also referred for a language assessment by her classroom teacher.

As reported by the worker: "The school speech and language assessment, dated June 6, 2014, concluded that her receptive and expressive language development falls in the moderately delayed range of functioning. She has shown some improvement since the previous assessment of June 23, 2013, and it is hoped that she will continue to improve with language therapy and support. Her delayed language skills may negatively impact on her literacy skills and overall school performance.

Given (the child)'s academic delays, she would benefit from repeating the grade." [ 10 ] In September 2014, the child started her grade 1 for the second time again, at a new school. Unfortunately, the difficulties of the child are such that she will have to repeat her grade 1 for the third time in September 2015. [ 11 ] The child was also seen by an audiologist in January 2015 as she was diagnosed with a hearing loss lost in August 2014.

The child now wears two hearing aids and it seems, according to the information provided, that she has adapted well to wearing them. [ 12 ] The child's situation is also followed by a paediatrician and the medication prescribed to control her bladder has led to positive results. [ 13 ] Despite her numerous academic difficulties and challenges, the child is doing well in the foster family and has developed a positive relationship with the family members. She receives from the foster mother significant support to overcome her delays.

She is enrolled in a community hip hop class, attends an after school program and enjoys spending time with her peers. The mother [ 14 ] In April and May 2014, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment.

As reported by the worker: "(The mother) suffers from a complex psychiatric condition with several co-existing psychiatric and neurological disorders: frontal lobe epilepsy, a personality disorder with paranoid and anti-social elements and possibly schizophrenia. (...) She exhibits poor insight and judgment (...). (the mother) lacks the psychological and psychiatric competence that would be expected and required of someone with parental custody, authority and capacity." [ 15 ] Concluding that there would be no drastic change in the mother's behaviour or interactions in the foreseeable future, the psychiatrist recommends that the visits between the child and her mother continue to be under the supervision of the Director. [ 16 ] The mother was also referred to the adult mental health team and assigned a worker.

Unfortunately, the mother presented as guarded and not forthcoming with information about her situation. As she was requesting help in order to have her children returned to her care within two months of her request, she was advised that therapy for personality disorders is a long process and that she needs to recognize her limitations and be motivated to receive services.

[ 17 ] A parental capacity assessment of the mother done in the spring of 2014 enlightens a deterioration. The psychologist concludes her assessment as follows: "Since the last psychological assessment, (the mother'

s) emotional and intellectual functioning deteriorated. The latter has an impact on her parenting capacities, as there is a minimal availability for insight. Unfortunately, there has been minimal change that has taken place regarding her parental capacities and continuous deterioration given the chronicity of her personality functioning and likely underlying psychiatric/neurological disorders. (The mother) is assessed as having a poor prognosis of being able to parent autonomously (the child and her sister).

She is limited in her capacity to meet their security, educational, emotional, material and limit-setting needs. (The mother) needs supervision in her role as a parent and her access to her children should be organized in consideration of the latter." The father [ 18 ] The father underwent a parental capacity assessment in August 2014. The psychologist concludes: "The cognitive testing data reflect limitations in abstract reasoning, which impact on decision-making and the ability to assess risk. (The father) presents as confident and in control of his life circumstances.

There was a tendency to distance himself from discussion of negative feelings or adversity. The personality measures show aspects of asocial behavior (e.g. living in socially disapproved ways, immaturity, and problems with authority). These characteristics contribute to (the father'

s) difficulty accessing professional resources and using pro-active strategies to improve personal and familial circumstances. Key processes related to organization and planning are limited and he proposes idealistic solutions to chronic barriers and challenges. (The father'

s) parenting presence has been marked by regular periods of separation, while living alternately between City A and City B . Since his children's entrustment to foster care, he has expressed a desire to become a full-time parent. In view of the past history, his parenting commitment will need to be evaluated over time and appraised by the consistency of his contact with his children.

With respect to his personal functioning, it will be important for him to demonstrate basic pre-requisites to parenting (e.g. the ability to live independently and autonomously; permanency in residence and legal status, and stable housing and income)." [ 19 ] The father recognizes that he is not in a position to care for the child. His immigration status is currently being addressed and he acknowledges that the process takes a long time. [ 20 ] During his testimony, he explains that he is not entitled to look for work as he is not a Canadian citizen and does not have a work permit.

Consequently, he doesn't have, at times, the money to take the bus to either meet the social worker or his child. [ 21 ] The worker reports that numerous meetings set with the father are cancelled as the father simply does not attend nor calls the worker to inform her of his absence. [ 22 ] The father, ideally, would like the child to be eventually entrusted to his care. He submits that his "ideal second option" would be for the child and her sibling to be entrusted to the care of his sister who lives in the Country A .

In order for the paternal aunt to be assessed in view of this suggested option, the father has to first register the children with the [Country A] embassy. So far, he has failed to do so. [ 23 ] With his agreement the father was registered with the "Terrific Toddlers parenting program" that started in February 2015. Unfortunately, he has not attended any sessions. The father claims he has been unable to attend the parenting program or meet with the worker because he doesn't have the financial means to pay for bus fare or that he had an injured knee.

His cell phone not being in use due to a lack of funds, he claims not being able to contact the workers involved by telephone. [ 24 ] In order to provide support and assistance to the parents to improve their parental capacity and promote a healthy development of the child, the services of an educator are provided during the supervised visits held bi-weekly with each parent individually. [ 25 ] The mother has been provided with information and activities related to promoting the healthy development of her children.

When given said information, the mother unfortunately presents herself as closed, resistant and refusing interaction, often questioning the purpose of activities and their validity. When asked questions, she often replies "no comment". [ 26 ] The educator notes in his report that as visits progress, the mother displays a more collaborative approach.

When both siblings are present, the mother has difficulty interacting with both children and the child seeks out workers in the room to interact with her as a result. [ 27 ] As for the father, he is said to display openness and willingness to talk during the supervised visits. He has difficulty implementing a consistent approach to address the needs of the children but expresses a basic knowledge of their developmental needs. [ 28 ] He too has some difficulty interacting with both children at the same time and, as a result, the child seeks the attention of the workers in the room.

When informed of this reality, the father makes efforts to change his interaction and to be more inclusive in his way to play with the children. During the visits, he his talkative and playful with the children and communicate the willingness to work collaboratively with the educator. The father has missed three of the four meetings set with the educator. [ 29 ] The Director has established clearly that the mother, despite her love for her daughter and her desire to care for her, is not in a position to care for the child.

The mother continues to make efforts to improve her situation and she is certainly encouraged to do so. The mother's diagnosis coupled with her lack of insight into her situation and her reluctance to acknowledge her difficulties and receive the appropriate services are incompatible with her expressed desire to have her daughter entrusted to her care. [ 30 ] The Court concludes from the documentary evidence and the testimonies that the security and development of the child are still

compromised. The recommendations of the Director meet the needs of the child and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six (6) months; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the information concerning the names and address of the foster family remain confidential; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality, as well as duration of contacts between the child and her parents, will be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if need be; [ 35 ] SETS the minimum frequency of contacts between the child and her parents at once (1) every two (2) weeks; [ 36 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercice of the attributes of parental authority; [ 38 ] GRANTS the Director of [Youth and Family Centres A] the exercice of the attributes of the parental authority; [ 39 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of six (6) months; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Nadia Sabik Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Attorney for the child Me François De Vette Attorney for the mother Me Thomas Fletcher Attorney for the father Date of hearing : June 1 st , 2015