2011 QCCQ 6198, 2011 QCCQ 6198

Protection de la jeunesse — 111310 2011 QCCQ 6198 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000241-084 DATE: January 14, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner and X Child and A and B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for revision of an order in respect of X (2007-[…]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] On October 2 nd , 2009, the Court declares that the security and development of this child are still in danger and orders that he be entrusted to a foster family until his majority for the reasons enunciated in the judgment in which were also determined the child/mother contacts. [ 3 ] The first six (6) months, the contacts were to be supervised at the mother's home once every two weeks (9:00 AM to 11:30 AM). [ 4 ] The next six (6) months, the contacts were to be supervised half of the time and were scheduled once every two weeks (10:00 AM to 2:00 PM). [ 5 ] The mother could have also access to her child on December 23 rd and the first working day closest to her birth anniversary and the one of X as well as the Mother's Sunday. [ 6 ] After this first year, the right of access were to be determined upon agreement between all parties and if not possible, then by the Court.

[ 7 ] The Court also authorized the Director of youth protection to verify if the mother is attending the appointments fixed by the psychologist and the psychiatrist because the mother needed these follow-ups. [ 8 ] By this petition, the Director of youth protection is asking the Court to reduce significantly the access of the mother to her son X.

Moreover, there is a demand that the necessary consents to be given concerning X's health services and other authorizations be delegated to the foster family, as the mother, for example, refused lately to give her consent that X has a passport which would have permit him to travel with his foster parents. [ 9 ] The petition is based on the following assertions and facts :

a) on October 2, 2009, the Court ordered a long term life project for X and he was entrusted to a foster family until his age of majority ;

b) the Court also order that the contacts between the mother and X be exercised according to the conditions set forth in the agreement reached by the parties ;

c) for the first six months, all the contacts between X and his mother were under the supervision of the Youth Protection Direction ;

d) X reacts negatively after those contacts and they cause insecurity to him ;

e) the mother did not accept the long term placement of his son ;

f) the mother did not attend the appointments with a psychologist and the psychiatrist ;

g) it is not in the best interest of X that the contacts with his mother be unsupervised. [ 10 ] At the hearing, the mother is present with her lawyer. She disagrees with the Director of youth protection's position and request. To the contrary, she wishes more contacts. [ 11 ] The child's lawyer agrees with the Director of youth protection. [ 12 ] The father is absent and is not involved in X's life.

However, he is represented by a lawyer who, at first, demands that if there are contacts, they shall be supervised and, while pleading at the end, declares that she is in agreement with the Director of youth protection. [ 13 ] The Court studied the petitioner's psychosocial report and its complement as well as the psychological evaluation of X (assessment of attachment bond) and its English translation. [ 14 ] Also, the Court examined the letters of a psychiatrist (mother's appointment dates) and of a social worker as well as the criminal record of the mother and a probation order. [ 15 ] The Court heard the testimony of the psychologist and the mother. [ 16 ] From the outset, it must be remembered that this hearing had been delayed between May and October 2010 at the request of the mother for the purpose of obtaining a counter-expertise.

We do not know if such expertise was conducted and none was filed. [ 17 ] Meanwhile, the parties agreed, on a provisory basis, that all the contacts be supervised twice a month like the first six months of the last Court order. [ 18 ] The petitioner gives a detailed description ( [1] ) of each and every contact since the last Court order and, if need be, the reasons for their cancellations. Many of these aborted contacts are the consequences of the mother's behaviour or misunderstandings. [ 19 ] Many of the contacts have their lot of prejudicial incidents as for example :

- on November 18, 2009, a mother's friend forces X to touch a horse as he was pushing and screaming ; ( [2] ) - on April 16, 2010, Mrs B said in front of X, referring to a hamster in her hands that if he bites her again, she will kill him ; ( [3] ) - on May 12, 2010, X poked accidentally his mother in the eye ; she said many times that he hurt her, she's gone to be blind as she was seeing anything and that she will have to go to the doctor. It took time for her to reassure X it was not his fault.

He was confused and scared ; ( [4] ) - on June 23, 2010, Mrs B prefers to spend part of the visit to show the intervener some conversations that her boyfriend had with other women on the computer ; ( [5] ) - on July 7, 2010, she said hello to X upon his arrival and started to talk with the intervener about her own problems.

She was not focusing on X who many times tried, without success, to attract the attention of his mother ; ( [6] ) - on July 21, 2010, she paid no attention to X upon his arrival as she was too focused on her distress at having lost her dog in the village and talking in front of X about her probation, jail and police. ( [7] ) [ 20 ] One can not ignore these excerpts of the petitioner's report : "Between September 1 st , 2010 and October 4, 2010, the mother did not have any visit with her son. On September 1 st , 2010, she called to cancel the visit because she was sick.

On September 15, 2010, we did not have news from her at all. On September 20, 2010, she called at the office and verbalized that she does not care about X anymore. She does not want any visit. She will see then when they will turn 18 years old . ( [8] ) (…) On July 16, 2010, we proceeded with the placement of Y, X's half-sister at the request of Mrs B. She express no longer able to care for her daughter's bad behaviours. She did have visits and phone calls with her daughter at the beginning but now, since August 31, 2010, Mrs B did not call or see her daughter.

We also proceeded with the placement of Z, X's half-brother at the request of Mrs B on September 8, 2010. ( [9] ) [ 21 ] Finally, the Court can not ignore the judgments rendered this same day in the situation of X's half-sister (

Y) and half-brother (Z). [ 22 ] Here what writes a social worker from the CLSC who follows the mother since 2005 : "Concerning Z, he is 10 months old and seems to have a good global development. B is still able to give him basic needs.

However, the instability of the parents, the state of distress and the verbal anger of the mother are some facts that I observed and put at risk the emotional security for Z. ( [10] ) (our underlinings) [ 23 ] What we mainly learn from the petitioner's reports about the contacts is that they are mostly playing activities. [ 24 ] X may seem to appreciate some of them but, overall, he is anxious to return with his foster family. [ 25 ] Many times, X feels insecure and exhibits distress or negative reactions during and after the contacts. [ 26 ] No real affective bond is noted between X and his mother who, at many occasions, prioritizes her own needs and interests. [ 27 ] She complains about contact's insufficiency but she does not take the steps to fully take advantage of each of the planned ones. [ 28 ] The psychologist, Mrs Marie-Josée Mercier, completed the evaluation of the attachment bond concerning X in April 2010. [ 29 ] She reviewed the entire file including the past psychosocial reports and the judgment of October 2 nd 2009.

She conducted interviews with numerous persons (child, mother, foster mothers, social workers) and she observed parent/child interactions. She also administered a projective personality test to X and viewed a video of X that was made on April 17, 2010.

[ 30 ] Here are few excerpts ( [11] ) of the psychologist's report (translated version) which are self-explained, revealing and of great probative value : "Our data leads us to believe that over the first months of his life, X was never able to form a secure attachment bond with a primary attachment figure. In the first year of this child's life, the fact that he was the victim of severe negligence and was put in the care of different adults seems to have affected the development of a secure attachment bond.

X also appears to have developed an adaptation mechanism as a way to cope with his insecurities and emotional deficiencies. He seems to have adopted attitudes and behaviours aimed at getting attention, affection and contact from the adults around him. This child gave a false impression of self-confidence when he went to strangers without showing fear, whereas he was actually covering up a feeling of insecurity, emptiness, the lack of a secure attachment bond with an adult.

We feel that the excellent care provided by his first foster parents when he was […] months old went a long way toward healing some of his wounds and reaching a place where he was open to a significant attachment bond with his foster parents. The data indicates that while X was in his first foster home, he developed a bond that was strong enough to allow him to gain confidence, to feel safe and to make progress in his relationships.

The strong reactions of the child when he was moved to a mixed-bank foster family are a good illustration of the typical reactions of a child who has become attached and is reacting to the separation (feeling of being torn away from his home, loss of attachment figures, sense of emptiness, anxiety, feelings of abandonment). Over the last year, X has been living and learning with his new foster family. Although he got off to a rocky start, reacting strongly to the move and to being separated from his first foster parents (regressive behaviours, tantrums etc.), today he seems to have become much calmer.

He seems to have gradually integrated this traumatic experience. The fact that he finds it so easy now to visit his first foster family and then return to his new foster family means, we think, that the child is developing a real attachment. This is, of course, also a direct result of the parenting styles of both families and the fact that they all put X's interests first. At the same time, however, some of the data seems to indicate that X's process of attachment has slowed down.

The fact that he finds it easy to leave his foster home to visit his mother, spend some time with us (strangers) and go to the social worker whom he has only known for the last few months seems to support the hypothesis by which X has returned to some of the adaptive behaviours he presented when he first came to foster care. We feel that the reappearance of these mechanisms overlies X's sense of insecurity as it was during his first year of life. We also feel that being exposed to his first mother figure is a source of confusion for the child.

The data indicates that this relationship, in spite of the ease with which X seems to interact with his (biological) mother, creates insecurity. We think these back- and-forth visits are a source of concern and are making X feel anxious. Although the adults certainly understand the rules, X does no understand their respective roles and seems to feel powerless in his emotional reality. Part of X seems to have no control over what is happening to him.

He allows himself to be led from one place to another and socializes easily with the people around him, but deep inside, he really does not understand what the adults are doing and often feels highly vulnerable and insecure. The apparent confidence he shows is fragile : as soon as someone changes his routines or he finds himself in an emotionally difficult situation, he turns to his teddy bear and keeps him close to make himself feel safer.

This feeling of safety depends on an outside object, then, not one any inner confidence that would make it unnecessary to cling to such an object. (…) Our data supports the conclusion that X's present foster family is meeting his emotional needs. They respect the child's rhythms and the bonds he has created. They are capable of giving the child the attention he needs and they show great sensitivity. Mrs C seems gentle, calm and attentive to X as well as capable of calming him down, comforting him and making him feel safe.

There is no doubt in our mind that this foster mother possesses all the qualities and parenting skills required to provide X with a safe, loving, stable home, a steady routine, firm discipline with clear, coherent limits, and a positive role model. As for Mrs B, X's biological mother, our observations in the family setting support those of other professionals and raise serious questions about this mother's capacity to be sensitive to X and to be attentive to his needs.

We noted that Mrs B's attitude with X tends towards seduction : she spoils him, establishes no limits whatsoever and goes out of her way not to cause him any frustration. We have also noticed that Mrs B tends to be verbally aggressive, even in front of X. Some of her interventions are much too intense, wholly out of line for dealing with a child. This sort of attitude and verbalization on Mrs B's

part can only cause greater insecurities and anxieties for X. It should be noted that we saw the lady for a few hours, during a time when she knew that she was being assessed. (…) The history shows that X has spent much more time away from his biological mother than with her. From the point of view of the child's emotional reality, she may be his biological mother, but she is not his psychological mother. The "psychological mother" is a figure that gains importance with time and care being constantly provided to the child.

Our assessment of X shows that at a very early age, X developed coping mechanisms and went towards anybody in search of contact and affection. X never really became attached to the people he met. He was docile, smiling and friendly. The data acquired after his first placement give a clear picture of the insecurity he was trying to hide under his surface attitudes. This tells us that X was compensating for the negligence to which he had been subjected and was seeking elsewhere what he had never found in first relationship with his biological mother.

The data also shows that in spite of X's great insecurity when he was first placed with Mrs D, the excellent care he received from this family let him create a real bond with them, and the first foster family became, in effect, X's psychological parents. There is no doubt that the loving care X received in this family helped heal some of the wounds related to his first experiences in life. When he was moved from his first foster family to a mixed-bank family, X's reactions showed that he had built up a very strong bond with these substitute parent figures.

Psychologically speaking, for the child, it felt like being ripped away. This was a traumatic experience, and we feel that it made X more fragile. His insecurities, that had been disappearing, came back, and today the child is still showing signs of insecurity in spite of the quality and constancy of the care he receives at Mrs C's hands. At the conclusion of our assessment of X, we also note that some of his coping mechanisms have recurred following this move. X seems to have returned to a

level of superficial involvements, trying to cover up his insecurity, going easily to other adults, even to strangers. Even though X is in the process of forming an attachment to his new foster home, the data shows that he remains insecure and somewhat confused about his position in his new foster family relative to his first foster family and his birth family. X is in the process of creating an attachment bond. He sees his first foster family, to whom he is very attached, once a month. These visits help X feel safe and help him overcome separations and separation anxiety.

His first foster parents do everything they can to help him : they are attentive to his needs, and his needs are a priority. They encourage him and support him. This seems to have attenuated any troubles related to separation, and they are also supportive of the C's plans to adopt him. In this way, X is getting the message that it is safe to get involved in his new life with Mrs C. The first foster parents never place X in a situation that might cause insecurity or confusion. They do not cause any conflict in loyalties.

They are peripheral figures in X's life who love him and who realize that he needs to be at home in his new environment. On the other hand, it seems to us very risky to keep up the relationship as it has been with his biological mother. We feel it is likely to increase X's feeling of insecurity and confusion. Several factors indicate that this relationship does not seem to meet the child's needs. We feel that keeping up the visits in the same way and on the same

schedule will keep X in a state of confusion and will generate more insecurity and negative feelings as well as considerable inner conflit (conflict of loyalty). We feel that these factors could slow or even inhibit the development of a secure attachment bond between X and his foster parents.

And that is without taking into account Mrs B's own weaknesses, which have considerable effect on the way she relates to X and the effects that this type of mothering might have on him. (…) Although Mrs B has made some progress over the last year, we feel that from the child's point of view, keeping up the contact on the same basis as it has been up to now does not meet X's needs. Since a court order has placed him in foster care until he reaches the age of majority, this child needs to be able to take root in his foster home over the next few months.

At the age of three, we feel that X needs a stable home where his emotional needs will be met and where he is provided with a safe, solid foundation where he can grow and reach his full potential. With this in mind, we suggest an approach that greatly reduces the frequency of contact between the child and his biological mother in order to give X a chance to feel that he belongs his new home and to reduce the influence his biological mother has on him.

We do not think that moves back and fourth to other families and having lots of people around him are necessarily good for his emotional development." (our underlinings) [ 31 ] The psychologist testifies that there is no significant affective bond between X and his mother. [ 32 ] She noted that X's behaviour improves a lot when there are less or no contacts with his mother. [ 33 ] She is worried about the mother's state of mind and the messages she could transmit to X as she does not accept the placement. [ 34 ] Mrs Marie-Josée Mercier recommends that the contacts be supervised elsewhere than at the mother's home.

The contacts shall be for a few hours four times a year. [ 35 ] This shall stand unless the situation of the mother positively changes and also, the wishes of the child, getting older, will certainly be taken into consideration. [ 36 ] For the psychologist, the purpose of the contacts is mainly to permit X to maintain a certain link with his biological family and are to be granted from the child's point of view and interest. [ 37 ] She suggests a 'lien de connaissance" instead of a "lien parental". [ 38 ] For a child of this age placed until its majority, the contacts with a biological parent can be increased at the condition the parent is stable, recognizes its difficulties and is genuinely involved in a follow-up. [ 39 ] She does not believe that the mother is actually affectively available for X. [ 40 ] Understandably, the mother testifies emotionally but, unsurprisingly, her testimony includes some irrational beliefs and statements. [ 41 ] While she does not accept the placement, she understands that X will be raised by other persons but, obviously, she does not recognize the reasons for that and does not see the impact on X of regular contacts between her and X at this particular period of his life. [ 42 ] She affirms that, if the contacts are to be four times a year, the best interest of X is to have no contacts at all. [ 43 ] She says that X is confused because of the actual rhythm of the contacts which shall be six (6) times a month instead.

She even said that they shall be every second day. [ 44 ] She blames others : the social workers who do not provide help and the psychologist who spent only three hours with her and X. [ 45 ] She easily forgets that she was not fully receptive and available for the psychologist who was coming from city A. [ 46 ] She also easily forgets how hard is to work with her as she often exhibits mood swings, speaks loud and does not let the

workers talk to the point that they have to leave sometimes. [ 47 ] The petitioner writes in her complementary report : "It is very difficult to have the cooperation of the mother. The information we get is often elusive, succinct and last minute. Mrs B is often fearful and on guard against our questions and our actions. She considers that the main problem and reason for her children' placements is the father, Mr A ( [12] ) . She confirms this thought when she verbalizes the problem will be solve after having Mr A kick out of her house.

She does not see that she sometimes has inadequate words or gestures in the presence of her son X. It happened that Mrs B admits facts and that thereafter, she denies having admitted.

She believes that our intervention is unnecessary ( [13] ) ." [ 48 ] She says that she did everything to improve her situation since 2008 but she did not do the most important thing : psychological and psychiatric follow-ups on a regular and constant basis. [ 49 ] Even if an English speaking psychologist was not available at the time, we believe she understands enough French to benefit from a follow-up which a French speaking psychologist.

At least, she could have tried. [ 50 ] She attended only three meetings with psychiatrist Dr Julie Laroche between January 2009 and May 2010. [ 51 ] At this rhythm, it is dubious that progress can be achieved. [ 52 ] Mrs B was asked what is the benefit for X to often see her : she had difficulty to answer but she claims that she want to be recognized by her son. [ 53 ] It is exactly what the psychologist foresees with the proposed schedule. [ 54 ] Altogether and after careful consideration of the whole evidence and the revision of the entire file, the Court concludes that the position of the Director of youth protection in the right one in the best interest of X.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 55 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 56 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to the foster family of Mr E and of Mrs D for this family is the choice of the Director of youth protection as the permanent life project of the child ; [ 57 ] DELEGATES to Mr E and Mrs D all legal authority concerning any consent or authorization to be given regarding X's needs especially health services, education, leasure activities, passport ; [ 58 ] PERMITS the Director of youth protection to confirm by writing to Mr E and Mrs D this delegation of the Court mentioned previously ; [ 59 ] ORDERS to any holder of X's medical record to give access to it to the Director of youth protection ; [ 60 ] AUTHORIZES two-hours supervised contacts between X and his mother in a neutral environment once every three months

under the modalities set by the Director of youth protection ; [ 61 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his foster family, and also to his parents, if they ask for it ; [ 62 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre A until […], 2025 (date of his majority) for the carrying out of the present measures. __________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. Me Lynn-Ann Smith, for the petitioner Me Daniel Mill, for the child Me Gisèle Cayouette, for the father Me Celestina Almeida, for the mother