2017 QCCQ 18259, 2017 QCCQ 18259

Protection de la jeunesse — 178501 2017 QCCQ 18259 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division N° : 525-41-029957-156 DATE : October 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONORABLE KAREN OHAYON ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X Born [...], 2002 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection (The Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on October 14, 2016, entrusting the children X and Y to their father along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that although the children are progressing well in the paternal home, ongoing support and monitoring continues to be required. [ 3 ] According to the applicant, the mother continues to struggle with significant personal difficulties and has recently been diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder.

She has yet to accept this diagnosis and seeks to obtain a second opinion. [ 4 ] Consequently, the Director is asking the Court to maintain the children with their father along with a social follow-up for the next year. [ 5 ] The father admits the allegations in the motion and adheres to the Director’s proposal. [ 6 ] The mother admits to the majority of the allegations and agrees to the measures proposed although she considers that she has no choice in the matter.

She adds however that she would like an increase in the visits with the girls. [ 7 ] The children admit to the majority of the allegations as stated in the motion but add that the issues with routine and/or hygiene have improved. They consent to the measures proposed. Regarding contact with the mother, they are satisfied with the current frequency and duration. The situation [ 8 ] Since the last judgment, the children have adapted well to living with the father who continues to cooperate with social services.

With the support of the stepmother, the father provides a structured routine and a secure living environment. There are still ongoing concerns with respect to hygiene, self-esteem and a potential conflict of loyalty for Y who feels trapped between her parents. Support services are in place to deal with these issues. [ 9 ] X continues to benefit from the support of the Centre de réadaptation en déficience intellectuelle (CRDI) despite the fact that an earlier autism diagnosis is no longer valid. In particular, a referral has been made for a psychological follow up to address the issue of enuresis.

[ 10 ] Both girls are progressing well in school and the father proudly produced in court their most recent progress reports. Although Y struggled at the beginning of the school year, she is now benefitting from tutoring and her results have improved. [ 11 ] Visits with the mother take place over the weekend on a bi-monthly basis.

They are supervised in part by the maternal grandmother although the mother is authorized to spend short periods of time alone with the girls. [ 12 ] A recent psychiatric assessment of the mother concluded that she suffers from Paranoid personality disorder as well as Hoarding disorder [1] .

The report indicates that the mother “… shows no adequate insight into the origins and nature of her difficulties and denies or rationalizes her impairments in parental capacity .” [ 13 ] The psychiatrist reports that, as a result of her refusal to acknowledge her difficulties, neither medication nor psychotherapy are likely to have any impact.

Rather, he recommends that the Director continue to offer the mother guidance and education regarding her parental skills [2] . [ 14 ] The mother’s testimony corroborates the notion that she fails to acknowledge her personal difficulties as well as the impact on her children. She believes that the girls were removed from her care simply because the house was messy but that otherwise, they were both doing well. She adds that she has been working on cleaning out the house and that it will be done by Christmas.

She fails to perceive the risks that the girls were exposed to when in her care, both with respect to their physical and emotional wellbeing. [ 15 ] Regarding her mental health, the mother questions the validity of the assessment and alludes to obtaining a second opinion although no concrete steps to that effect appear to have been taken. Analysis [ 16 ] Despite the services in place, the mother’s situation has not evolved in any significant manner.

She continues to lack insight into the motives justifying the Director’s intervention and fails to assume any responsibility for the removal of the girls from her care.

She refuses to accept her psychiatric diagnosis and therefore fails to secure any personal services required to help her manage her mental health. [ 17 ] Over the next year, the mother is encouraged to follow through with the advice and counsel of the professionals involved in order to assist her with her personal difficulties. [ 18 ] Both girls have made it clear that they wish to remain with their father while benefitting from regular visits with their mother.

Considering the progress observed in their current environment, the Court agrees that the continued support of the Director is required. [ 19 ] After weighing the whole of the evidence, the Court concludes that the recommendations set forth by the Director are in the best interest of the children. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 21 ] THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to the care of their father TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that a long term plan will be established over the course of the next year; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the DYP taking into consideration the children’s wishes; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the girls are with their mother every second weekend from Friday evening to Sunday; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother maintain a residential environment safe and appropriate for the children; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that mother continue to receive support services regarding her mental health; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from denigrating the father in the presence of the children; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the Director to share and obtain information with all treating professionals; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the children’s and parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain the children's school attendance records and progress reports; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any measure ordered; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the Director to inform him of their current situation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. Signed in City A On October 31, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Heidi Lechter Attorney to the Director Me Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney to the children Date of the hearing: October 26, 2017 KO/lf