2011 QCCQ 6037, 2011 QCCQ 6037

Protection de la jeunesse — 11277 2011 QCCQ 6037 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Chamber » DATE : January 6, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : N° : 635-41-000273-091 X 1996-[...] 635-41-000275-096 Y 1997-[...] 635-41-000276-094 Z 2008-[...] [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection C.Y.P.C.

A, Quebec, district 1 Applicant And A, residing and domiciled in town A, Quebec , district A Mother And B, residing and domiciled in town B, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JL2340 JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) [ 1 ] Mrs [social worker 1], authorized delegate of the Director of Youth Protection C.Y.P.C. A, asks the Court to review the last decision rendered by the undersigned concerning Z, 2 years old, Y, 13 years old, and X, 14 years old.

She asks for one-year placement in a foster family for Y and X and the placement of Z in a foster family until her majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present, assisted by Me Marie-Claude De Gagné. The oldest children are present and they are all represented by Me Denis Trottier. Me Wolfgang Mercier-Giguère represents the petitioner. The father of Y and X is present. There is no declared father for Z.

With the parties' consent, there is a common hearing for the three situations. [ 3 ] Following the admissions, evidence is completed with the testimonies of the mother, the social worker and the foster parent and the revision reports, the psychological evaluation report of the mother and the psychiatric consultation report of Y. The mother and the oldest children do not agree with the recommendations, but do not provide any evidence. The father of Y and X declares that he cannot assume them. [ 4 ] The following facts are proven beyond balance of probabilities : 4.1.

Last March 2010, the Court ordered that Y and X remained with the mother under specific conditions;

4.2. Z was placed in a foster family for six months; 4.3. On June 2010, because of the non collaboration of the mother, petitions in review were prepared, but waived later after, the mother signed a contract in which she accepted to collaborate and to comply with the intervention plan; 4.4. But soon after, in August 2010, the mother's collaboration became irregular; 4.5. She refused to collaborate with the psychiatrist charged of Y; 4.6. Later, Y stole a vehicle, drove while intoxicated and had an accident. She spent the night at the hospital; 4.7.

The youth appeared very distressed and lonely, preoccupied and overwhelmed with sadness and despair. She complaints about being regularly physically hit by her brother X. She dreams of her father, as being the adult giving her the human warmth she needs, even if her father is not quite involved in her situation.

The psychiatrist concluded that the youth is in depression and « needs adding to medical attention, psychological intervention to work on her traumatic issues and build trust in her relationship/long term involvement and further clarification of the Director of Youth Protection concerning a recent assault » . [ 5 ] As the mother left before the psychologist had the chance to share her worries and give her recommendations, the social worker explained her later the report.

The mother would now accept to collaborate to ensure her daughter's well-being if she is ordered by the Court. [ 6 ] For X, evidence reveals that he does not attend school and has difficulties to respect authority. The psychologist also evaluated him and diagnosed a conduct disorder, low frustration tolerance and self-reliant, denial, negation and avoidance, stressor chronic, moderately severe, exposure to interpersonal violence as an enfant, parental abandonment and neglect. [ 7 ] The youth needs « to be surrounded by adult who can provide him structure, get involved and interested in his life.

He needs to have a role model to identify with and spend his time in a more active and positive way » . Psychological evaluation should be completed to clarify the ADHD. [ 8 ] The baby Z lives in a foster family at Mrs C's place since June 30, 2009, except for six weeks when returned to her mother. During that short period, the baby lost four pounds and had worrisome behaviours during meal times. She was making herself throw up right after she ate her meal.

It took a week to bring her back to her routine when she returned in her foster family. [ 9 ] Z has created significant attachment bond with her foster parents. She reacts positively to the stability and continuity of the foster parents' good caring. The foster parents wish to be involved in Z's life and are able and willing to take care of her for long term. [ 10 ] The mother was unable to maintain regular contact with her daughter. She could not put in priority the child's needs and behave in her best interest.

She is jealous of the foster parents, do not accept the attachment bond between them and her daughter. [ 11 ] In the psychological assessment report of the mother made by Dr Joseph Beltempo, he found out that she meets the criteria for substance abuse disorder, that she is more inner-centered and that she is quite cut off from her emotions.

Most of the difficulties that she encounters psychologically are the result of problems related to substance abuse. [ 12 ] With her personal traumas, her way of life and her problems with consumption of alcohol and drugs, the mother is unable to provide a secure, stable and structured home to her children. She loves her children but cannot answer their personal and specific needs. She needs to develop her parental skills. [ 13 ] The mother had many opportunities to show her motivation and collaboration, but she is still reluctant.

She may attend therapy and treatment with somebody she trusts at her own rhythm, but only if the children's well-being and security are ensure in foster families. [ 14 ] Considering the father's position; [ 15 ] Considering the evidence, [ 16 ] Considering

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act, [ 17 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 18 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y and Z are still in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS the placement of Z in a foster family until her majority; [ 21 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family for a period of one year starting from the present judgment; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of Y in a reception centre for a period of one year starting from the present judgment; [ 23 ] WITHDRAWS some parental rights from the mother in Z's situation and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all the authorizations needed for Z's school, health, travel and hobbies; [ 24 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide Y and X all the medical and psychological services they need for as long as required by the professionals;

[ 25 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visit rights and access of the children with their parents (duration, frequency and presence of a third person); [ 26 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents until the end of the placements; [ 27 ] ORDERS the mother to attend detoxification therapy with an external follow up after and to collaborate with the social worker; [ 28 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present enactment; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Wolfgang Mercier-Giguère, attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Claude De Gagné, attorney for the mother Me Denis Trottier, attorney for the children Date of hearing : October 19, 2010