2019 QCCQ 18362, 2019 QCCQ 18362

Protection de la jeunesse — 197461 2019 QCCQ 18362 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] « Youth division »

N° : 455-41-001140-185 DATE : October 22, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2018 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A Applicant -et- A -et- B Child’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Tribunal is seized with an application for protection dated March 6, 2018, presented by the Director in which he requests that the security and development of X be declared in danger on the ground of serious risk of neglect. [ 2 ] Since the beginning of this file, the Director’s recommendations remained substantially the same, namely: that the child be entrusted to a foster family, taking notice of the Director’s intention to initiate a long-term plan for the child during this period that excludes a possible return to her family environment, to prohibit the contacts between the child and her parents, and to order a social follow-up for X and her family, the whole for a period of one year. [ 3 ] X is the mother’s 7 th child.

None of her children remain in her care. [ 4 ] The four first children were placed in foster care in Ontario due to neglect and exposure to conjugal violence and have been adopted since. [ 5 ] Her 5 th (Y, 12 years) and 6 th (Z, 9 years) children have been placed in foster care due to neglect on physical and educational level as well as psychological ill-treatment. Y is entrusted to a foster home until age of majority and Z to a readaptation centre. Both have serious behavioural issues which need constant correction on a daily basis.

The mother has supervised contact with them. [ 6 ] The mother has limited parental capacities and cognitive limitations. [ 7 ] She was victim of domestic violence in her relationships which affected her children. [ 8 ] The parents are partners since around June 2017, when the mother became pregnant of M. B. This relationship seems to be free from conjugal violence.

[ 9 ] However, the father has some mental health issues. He has limited interventions with the child. [ 10 ] The Tribunal heard this case on multiple dates throughout the last year and a half. At all hearings, when the Court proceeded, both parents were present and represented. [ 11 ] At first, the mother was aiming at getting back X into her care. [ 12 ] After a psychological assessment which did not bode well for her claim, she gave up the fight and the father stepped up to ask for the care of X. [ 13 ] Subsidiarily, both parents want to keep contact with the child.

Question in litigation [ 14 ] Is it possible for the child to return to her father’s care? [ 15 ] Should contacts between the parents and the child be allowed? Findings of the court [ 16 ] The Court considers that neither parent is able to care for the child. [ 17 ] Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that all contacts between the child and the parents should be forbidden. The following explains the reasoning of the Court.

The situation of compromission and the evolution of the parents’ position [ 18 ] X’s situation was signalled to the Director at her birth because of the mother’s unresolved history of negligence. [ 19 ] The mother is well known from the Director who is currently in charge of the execution of youth protection court orders for Y and Z. [ 20 ] The Director is informed of a psychological assessment done on the mother in 2003 in Ontario, which led to the placement of her children. [ 21 ] This assessment concludes that the mother has cognitive limitations that would challenge her in coping with everyday life. [ 22 ] More particularly, she is very challenged in understanding the changing nature of a child’s needs as he develops and in flexibly adjusting to child management methods according to his age and temperament. [ 23 ] The mother does not recognize her limitations and, on the contrary, overestimates her abilities which prevent her from accepting help to improve her parental capacity. [ 24 ] The mother’s history of conjugal violence victim has been long standing.

Her last violent boyfriend, C, was in a relationship with her up until April 2017. She even miscarried after he beat her severely. [ 25 ] She has organizational difficulties. For example, she has not had a health insurance card for many years. [ 26 ] Her last apartment was unhealthy and she got evicted. [ 27 ] The mother still does not recognize the motives for the intervention of the Director. She claims the only one is conjugal violence.

She claims her relationship with the father is exempt of it. [ 28 ] On March 7, 2018, the Court granted a provisional order entrusting X to a foster home. [ 29 ] As the mother was stating that the psychological assessment dated from 15 years ago and that she was now in a non-abusive relationship and had evolved, she asked to be re-assessed. [ 30 ] She even offered to integrate the [Organism A] with the child for her parental capacities to be evaluated, but this was not possible due to the chronicity of the mother’s problematic. [ 31 ] The Court finally recommended the psychological evaluation of the mother. [ 32 ] For this evaluation to happen, the Court had to order it on May 23, 2018 in the following terms: Orders, under

article 86 of the Youth Protection Act, a full psychological evaluation of the mother, including cognitive and parental capacities. [ 33 ] The mother was finally assessed by the psychologist Julien Roux who filed a report dated September 30, 2018. [ 34 ] This assessment confirmed that the mother had limited parental capacities. [ 35 ] As to her cognitive functioning, her profile indicates moderate impairment and learning difficulties although she does not reach the threshold of intellectual disability.

Logical reasoning appears to be the most impaired. [ 36 ] She also has an infantile character defence mechanism and the construction of the self is very much impaired. Her contact with reality is often sparse and thought process disorganized.

[ 37 ] The psychologist also diagnosed a psychotic personality structure. She has great difficulty dealing with anxiety which could cause her, on a high degree level, to lose contacts with reality and give way to strange perception. [ 38 ] The psychologist also assessed impaired ability to tackle parental responsibility: « Regarding her role as a parent, Mrs. A’s personality functioning is likely to significantly impair her capacity to take care of children, and to keep in mind in a realistic manner their needs affective states.

Her own infantile dependency needs and difficulty with generational boundaries seem to have yet prevented her from assuming a parental role altogether, as she could not have developed a sense of the immense responsibility, that is to be accountable for someone else’s complete dependency. As of yet, the psychotic aspects of her personality have gone untreated and may further decompensate if exposed to intense stress, posing further obstruction to her taking care of young children. » [ 39 ] He concludes by saying: « To summarize, Mrs.

A presents with a psychotic personality structure marked by paranoid thought processes and perceptions as well as fragmentation anxieties. The self is poorly developed, as are her means to cope and adapt. We can only make hypotheses about the impact of early neglect and trauma on her development. She seems to have barricaded against these anxieties, albeit inefficiently, by forging an infantile character defence with emphasis on anaclitic needs and abandonment anxiety. However, her responses show that she has bot genuinely achieved the capacity to be in relationships with individuals and consider them as such.

These traits are likely to impair her parental capacities in a significant manner. If Mrs.

A’s cognitive limitations must be taken into account in explaining these results, it is important to understand that they come as both a cause and a consequence of this particular development. » [ 40 ] On November 30, 2018, the Court declared that the security and development of the child is in danger for serious risk of neglect, to which both parents were admitting. [ 41 ] Nonetheless, dissatisfied with the psychologist’s findings, the mother wanted to have a counter-expertise but was not able to ascertain one. [ 42 ] On June 6 th , 2019, during a case management hearing, the mother‘s lawyer informed the Court that the mother was no longer requesting to care for the child. [ 43 ] It was only then that the father expressed his interest in caring for the child.

The mother immediately supported the father’s new position. [ 44 ] In the meantime, the parents had not been collaborating well with the social follow-up. [ 45 ] They did not keep the delegate informed of their situation. [ 46 ] Even when the father decided to ask the Court to care for the child, he did not inform the delegate. [ 47 ] At that time, X had been in foster care for more than a year. [ 48 ] The final hearing was held on September 16 th , 2019.

The measures [ 49 ] Before treating the questions in litigation, the Court must stress that the evidence shows that a return to the mother’s care is not possible. [ 50 ] Even if the mother had maintained her claim to care for the child, the Court would not have allowed such a plan because of the chronicity of her personal issues and because of her limited parental capacities that are still present today. [ 51 ] Aside from the psychological assessment, during the follow-up for Y and Z, she is still exhibiting issues around anxiety and reactions to stress and change and misperceptions of reality that lead to her sometimes disorganising herself even in a child’s presence. [ 52 ] The Court finds that both assessments in 2003 and 2018 are aligned and show that the mother, due to her past history, has psychological issues up and above the fact that she was a victim of conjugal violence and exposed her children to it. [ 53 ] As such, the mother does not have the parental capacities necessary to care for X on a day to day basis and a return to her care is not deemed possible. 1) Is it possible to return the child to her father’s care? [ 54 ] When the Director took charge of X’s situation, the information about the father was concerning. [ 55 ] According to his doctor, Dr.

Michel Camirand, who had treated him for 15 years, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and used to have toxic psychosis because of drugs abuse. [ 56 ] Although he had ceased using hard drugs, he was still using marijuana and it could cause him hallucinations. [ 57 ] The doctor said his patient was limited and would have difficulty caring on a full-time basis for a child. [ 58 ] At the beginning of the Director’s intervention, the father was very agitated and unpredictable. He did not seem to be able to

handle stress. [ 59 ] At the time, he was also taking medication and was attending follow-up visits with his doctor, now Doctor Carole Bélanger. [ 60 ] At his last appointments in 2018, she no longer retained the diagnosis of schizophrenia. [ 61 ] In January 2018, she diagnosed him with panic disorder, agoraphobia, substance abuse disorder (cannabis) and also presenter with traits of Cluster B personality (antisocial, hypersensitivity for example). [ 62 ] He was prescribed with Paxil, to prevent panic and anxiety. [ 63 ] In the follow-up appointments, in March and April 2018, the father’s state was stable.

He was calm, more energetic and showed more interest. [ 64 ] He was not having panic attacks anymore but was still taking Paxil. [ 65 ] Since then, the father has not continued with his medical follow-up. [ 66 ] He explained to the Court that his psychiatric condition was due to a car accident in 2001.

He was in a coma for 14 days and had been seeing shadows (hallucinations) ever since. [ 67 ] He says he is doing much better now and has even stopped his medication since April 2018. [ 68 ] He says he stopped having hallucinations and panic attacks when X was born. [ 69 ] He refuses to be psychiatrically re-assessed to verify his current situation. [ 70 ] During the contacts with the child, he let the mother be the primary caregiver for the child. [ 71 ] The contact supervisors also noticed that the father could be sleepy as he was working at night. [ 72 ] The father currently works 4 days a week from 5 pm to 3 am.

He said he would have to ask for a change of

schedule if he was to care for X. It does not seem likely from his testimony that his boss would be willing to grant him this request. In fact he tested this possibility by asking questions at work but not before August 29, 2019. [ 73 ] He says that he would get a sitter to care for X while he works but has taken no steps to ascertain one. [ 74 ] There was only one visit when the father was alone.

The father was able during that visit to meet the child’s needs. [ 75 ] But a visit going well does not mean that the parents can take care of a child on a full-time basis. [ 76 ] Furthermore, the father did not request more visits alone with the child. [ 77 ] His interest in caring for X is, to say the least, very tardy. [ 78 ] His plan to care for the child included the eviction of the mother with whom he is living. [ 79 ] His plan is not concrete nor realistic. [ 80 ] It comes at a time where the mother felt her chances of getting back X were slim. [ 81 ] The child needs a parent who is able and willing to care for her and answer all her needs, especially at X’s young age. [ 82 ] The Court also remains preoccupied by the father’s mental health issues.

His unwillingness to pursue a medical follow-up or assessment indicates that he might be hiding his real state. [ 83 ] The father had never been asking about X’s medical follow-ups, vaccines or how she is developing. [ 84 ] Despite the fact that he works, he does not pay for parental contributions. [ 85 ] The Court believes that the father came forward at the mother’s request to keep the child in the family. [ 86 ] If his intentions to care for X would have been genuine, he would have come forward much before. [ 87 ] In the meantime, X continued to create a bond with her foster family.

At this point, it is not in her interest to be removed from her foster family who answers her needs. [ 88 ] For all these reasons, the court does not believe that it is possible to return X to her father’s care. 2) Should contact with the parents be allowed? [ 89 ] This question must also be analyzed in the light of the child’s needs. [ 90 ] In other words, contacts with the parents should be authorized when they benefit the child. [ 91 ] In March 2018, when the child was entrusted to a foster home, supervised contacts were organized between the parents and X at

a frequency of twice a week for a duration of one hour. [ 92 ] The parents were regular in attending these contacts. [ 93 ] During the first months, they had a hard time decoding the child’s needs. [ 94 ] The father often overstimulated the child and both parents had difficulties consoling X. [ 95 ] In the spring of 2018, X was crying a lot and it was only when the parents were informed that the visit would end if the child was crying for too long that they reacted in changing their routine, which improved the child’s reactions. [ 96 ] After that, the parents became less regular in their presence at the visits. [ 97 ] Progressively, the mother has taken the lead in the visits.

As mentioned before, the father is less active and interacts less with the child sometimes even closing his eyes. [ 98 ] X has been reacting to the parent’s visits. [ 99 ] At the beginning, she was more irritable and sensitive after a visit. She wanted to be in the foster parents’ arms and did not accept to be put down.

Her sleep was also disrupted. [ 100 ] At some point, the visits were spaced and their frequency is now at once every week, one hour and a half per contacts for the mom and once every two weeks for the father. [ 101 ] Nonetheless, X is still reacting after the visits, eating less, being more tired, uninterested in playing. [ 102 ] She can also be moody and is not responding well to her routine. [ 103 ] During the visit, she does interact with her parents but more as if it was a play date with adults than a true parents-child relationship. [ 104 ] The Court finds that the contacts are more to answer that parents’ needs that the child’s. [ 105 ] X has been in her foster home since April 14 th , 2018. [ 106 ] She is developing well in her foster parents’ care where her needs are met. [ 107 ] The order regarding the contacts must be coherent with the life plan of the child. [ 108 ] In this case, X will not be returning to her parents’ care. [ 109 ] She has spent all her life in the care of the foster parents and there lies her attachment. [ 110 ] The Court thus finds that it is not in the child’s best interest to maintain contact with her parents who have not been able to create a bond with the child. [ 111 ] The Court understands that the Director will be making a life plan for this child during the present order.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X is in danger; ORDERS that the child X be entrusted in a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth protection for a period of one year; ORDERS that the child’s parents periodically report to the Director of Youth protection on the measures they apply in their own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child is in danger; TAKES NOTICE of the Director’s intention to initiate a long-term plan for the child during this period excluding the return to her family environment; PROHIBITS the contacts between the child X and her parents, after one last visit; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures set forward to put an end to the situation, namely that they participate in the elaboration of the intervention plan; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Pier Trépanier Counsel for the Directorr Of Youth Protection Me Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the child Me Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Me Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the father Date of written judgment : October 22, 2019 Date of hearing : September 16, 2019