2018 QCCQ 10561, 2018 QCCQ 10561

Protection de la jeunesse — 181069 2018 QCCQ 10561 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Protection Division No: 450-41-006328-174 450-41-006329-172 DATE: February 13, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF THE CHILDREN : X Born on [...], 2015 Y Born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse du CIUSSS A, working at [...]; (Applicant) -and- UNDECLARED FATHER ; (For X) -and- A , unknown address ; (father of Y) -and- B , residing and domiciled at [...]; Parents

______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT CORRECTED ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) is asking the court to review a decision rendered September 8, 2017 by Justice Monique Lavallée in which she entrusted X (2 years old) and Y (5 years old) to a foster family for a period of six months. [ 2 ] Today, the DYP recommends that the children remain in their actual foster family for a period of one year and to forbid contacts between them and their parents.

The DYP also requests that the Court take notice that it intends to clarify a life plan for the children, excluding the return to their mother’s care. [ 3 ] The mother would like to maintain contacts with her children and contests the request that their return to her care be excluded. [ 4 ] Y’s father has been absent from his son’s life for more than 18 months. He has not communicated with the social worker since the last Court Order. He is nowhere to be found.

The Court thus relieved the DYP of its obligation to serve the present application on the father and proceeded in his absence. [ 5 ] The attorney for the children believes that the mother must meet some requirements before any contact between her and the children be reinstated. Issues at stake [ 6 ] Shall the return of the children to their mother’s care be excluded from the life plan? [ 7 ] Shall contacts be reinstated between the children and their mother in the next year?

Context [ 8 ] Both issues at stake cannot be answered without reading the decision rendered by Justice Monique Lavallée on September 8, 2017. [ 9 ] This decision reveals that before the DYP was alerted, the mother had already neglected the children for some time. The mother missed the children’s medical appointments and did not honor meetings with the professionals.

Consequently, despite the various services offered to her by the centre de santé et de services sociaux (CSSS), the children remained with growing development delays. [ 10 ] Since the fall of 2016, when the DYP started to evaluate the situation, the children’s situation has worsened and they were in need of protection. [ 11 ] After the evaluation, despite a lack of acknowledgement of the difficulties by the parents and very poor cooperation, the DYP decided to sign a voluntary measure agreement under which the children remained in their mother’s care with the hope that the mother would make the expected changes. [ 12 ] Unfortunately, this voluntary measure agreement did not yield any results.

The mother continued to miss some of the children’s medical appointments. She would not attend more meetings and would not even inform the social worker of her absences. Without surprise, the children continued to present developmental delays. [ 13 ] In June 2017, the Court entrusted the children to a foster family while the mother was expected to gain admission to La Villa Marie-Claire. The mother neglected to attend the pre- admission meetings and La Villa Marie-Claire refused her admission. [ 14 ] While her children remained in the foster family, the mother neglected to visit them as much as she could have.

When she would visit them, most of the time the mother was late. The mother would give various reasons for being absent or late (lack of transportation, car trouble, recent move). [ 15 ] In September 2017, Justice Lavallée came to the conclusion that the mother seemed more interested in planning to have another child with her new boyfriend then taking care of the ones she already had. As the Court wrote: « the mother clearly has difficulty putting the children’s needs before her own .» [1]

[ 16 ] During that time, Y’s father who was already slightly involved, disappeared to Town A without leaving any address. [ 17 ] When invited to order the protective measures, Justice Lavallée wrote: [70] The children were victims of neglect by their parents and are in need of a stable environment in the care of adults who are able to meet their specific needs on a daily basis. [71] The evidence shows that the parents are not presently able to do so. [72] Y’s father has been completely absent from his son’s life for the last ten months and has shown no interest in his well being. [73] Before he left for Town A, although he was present at home, he was little involved in his son’s care. [74] This may explain why Y does not talk about or ask for him. [75] Before contacts between Mr A and his son can be considered, the father will have to be able to demonstrate to the Court that he is willing and able to provide a stable and positive presence in his son’s life. [76] As for the mother, although she has stated at various times her intention to do what it takes to show she is able to care for her sons, her actions so far have not shown this and rather raise doubts as to her desire and/or ability to make her sons her priority. [77] At the hearing, the Court explained to the mother the importance of taking action immediately to correct the situation before it is too late for X and Y who cannot be expected to wait indefinitely and for whom six months is a long time considering their very young age. [78] The Court therefore invites the mother not to delay, to cooperate fully with the DYP and to actively participate in the measures he proposes to correct the situation.» [2] Analysis [ 18 ] While Justice Lavallée was inviting the mother not to delay full cooperation and solve her problems, she did not know that the mother had been in turmoil since March 2017. [ 19 ] On September 21, 2017, the social worker learns that the mother’s apartment was set on fire.

This fire would have been set by a man that had been threatening the mother and her partner for over six months. The social worker also learns that this man broke and entered into the mother’s apartment 6 times. In one of the break and enters, the man would have provoked the mother to abort her pregnancy by putting a pill into the mother’s glass of water. [ 20 ] The social worker learns that this man was waiting to intimidate the mother at some point when she was in the presence of the children. [ 21 ] A police inquiry is presently open.

The mother is now living in Town B. [ 22 ] On November 30, the police inform the social worker that the mother has registered a complaint because she was attacked the day before by a man who stabbed her and stole 3000$. [ 23 ] In December 2017, the man threatened to kidnap and beat the mother until she become unconscious.

He also had threatened to send a videotape of this criminal act to her partner. [ 24 ] The mother recognizes that she has not been participating as promised in the social follow-up but explains that she was overwhelmed by all of these events. [ 25 ] The Court finds that, even before being a victim of criminal actions, the mother never showed serious interest in any follow-ups.

Due to the personal turmoil in her life for many years, it is no surprise that the mother consistently missed her follow-up opportunities. [ 26 ] When questioned as to why she had not informed the social worker of all of these recent events, the mother simply answered that she did not find it important because she felt that the children were not in danger. [ 27 ] There were no meetings with the mother since November, except the day of the application for provisional measures in December 2017 when the social worker requested the Court to suspend the contact between the mother and the children. [ 28 ] Since September 2017, the mother only honored one visit to her children out of seven on weekends.

On weekdays, the mother honored only one contact out of four. Finally, the mother was invited to call her children regularly to give them some sense of security and avoid them feeling abandoned. Out of 90 possible phone calls, the mother only called 10 to 15 times.

[ 29 ] Y doesn’t understand why his mother doesn’t come to visit. After two weeks without news from his mother, Y feels the despair. He keeps saying he doesn’t understand why his mother doesn’t come to pick him up for the visit. At the end of November 2017, Y got extremely sad as he had prepared a special treat for his mother who never showed up to the visit. [ 30 ] Considering these negative impacts, the social worker decided not to inform the children anymore when the intended visit would be, in the hope that this would reduce their disappointment.

Unfortunately, this had another type of impact on the children who became hypervigilant and expected their mother all the time. Their anxiety level went up. [ 31 ] Based on the foregoing, in December 2017, the Court suspended the contacts between the mother and her children. [ 32 ] Since then, the children feel reassured. They know that their mother is now working at solving her personal issues.

They have stopped expecting her and are spared the resultant disappointment. [ 33 ] As the mother’s lawyer puts it «it’s time for the mother to walk the talk». [ 34 ] The Court agrees that it is time for the mother to put words into action before the Court allows the social worker to reinstate contact between her and the children. [ 35 ] The first step towards that goal will be for the mother to attend meetings with the social worker on a regular basis. Secondly, she will have to stabilize her personal situation.

Thirdly, the mother will have to show a real interest in the development of her sons. [ 36 ] When the mother can resume her role as a mother to her children, by putting them first, this will be a concrete first sign that reinstating contacts might be in the best interest of her sons. [ 37 ] Meanwhile, both children will live in the new foster family they integrated on November 3, 2017. This foster family is ready to take the children until their majority, if needed.

The children are doing well so far in their new home. [ 38 ] Whether they will still be happy there by the end of this year and how they will evolve without their mother, this is another question that the Court will have to answer in a year from now. [ 39 ] Next year will be a better time to evaluate the permanent life plan that fits best the children’s needs, including where they will live permanently as well as the place the mother will be able to have in their lives. [ 40 ] Meanwhile, despite the fact that an eventual return to their mother’s care appears more hypothetical than possible at this stage, the Court doesn’t feel that it is yet the time to exclude the potential return of X and Y to their mothers’ care.

Of course, should the past guarantee what is to be anticipated for the future, the children should expect staying on a long-term basis in their foster family.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of X and Y are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on September 8 th , 2017; ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection for their foster care in a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth protection for a period of one year; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to clarify a long term plan for the children during this period; FORBIDS any direct or indirect contact between Y and his parents; FORBIDS any direct or indirect contact between X and his mother; AUTHORIZES that supervised contacts be reinstated, according to the modalities set with the DYP, but only if the following conditions are met: - The mother meet with the social worker 4 times consecutively, without being late; - The mother reveals more personal stability in her life;

- The mother demonstrate an interest in the development of her boys on a regular basis by requesting information as to their status; - The mother responds within 3 days to a request from the social worker for an authorization for health care, school, travel and passport needs; - The mother commits to honor regular visits to her sons that will be supervised at first, in order for the children to understand what happened in their mother’s life and try to regain trust; - The visits correspond to the childrens’ needs and interest; AUTHORIZE that the supervision be lifted if the situation allows it and if there is an agreement among the parties, including the attorney for the children; If there is any disagreement over the visiting rights, the Court will decide upon a new Motion for revision.

FORBIDS any direct or indirect contact between X and his psychological father, Mr.

A; ORDERS that X receives all healthcare services needed for his situation; APPOINTS the foster family, namely Mrs C to exercise the said attributes of parental authority if the mother has not answered a request within 3 days; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aide, counsel and assistance to X and Y and their parents, if they specifically ask for it, for a period of six months ; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out.

Signed November 22 nd , 2018 __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. Me Christine Loubier Par Me Marie-Pier Trépanier Youth Protection Counsel Me Céline Gallant Counsel for the Children Me Sébastien Gagnon Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: January 19 th , 2018 D-11