2014 QCCQ 12526, 2014 QCCQ 12526

Protection de la jeunesse — 141584 2014 QCCQ 12526 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025831-124 DATE: January 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - x Born on […], 2011 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 16, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered October 10, 2012, entrusting the child to the care of his father for a period of nine months along with other measures and a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child is doing very well in the care of the father; • The mother was allowed to have unsupervised weekend contacts with the child until the end of November 2012; • On November 28, 2012, a signalement was received concerning the mother being physically abusive to the child’s older siblings; • On December 6, 2012, Y and Z reported that the mother uses foul language and is physically abusive to them and their siblings, except for X, when they misbehave and that it has happened since they were placed; • On December 6, 2012, Z reported that during a weekend visit, the mother grabbed C by the collar of his shirt and hit him repeatedly because he hurt D; • D confirmed that the mother hit C a lot after C had hit him in the stomach; • In December 6, 2012, Y and Z also reported that the mother uses foul language when they misbehave; • C, E, F and the mother deny that the mother is physically or verbally abusive to her children; • Since the evaluation of the signalement was completed, the visits between the child and the mother are supervised at [center A]; • On February 4, 2013, the father reported to the youth protection worker that he has been separated from the mother of his older children for thirteen years, that he was living in an apartment a few buildings from her and that he was afraid to share this information

with the Director of Youth Protection; • Moreover on February 4, 2013, the father also reported to the youth protection worker that the mother has taken the child alone to be vaccinated on January 14, 2013, and that she has been in his apartment to see the child on different occasions; • The father has committed himself to not allowing anymore visits between the child and the mother that would not be authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; • On February 25, 2013, the father reported to the youth protection worker that the mother has been sending him threatening text messages and he showed these messages to the youth protection worker; • In January 2013, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment which did not provide any explanation for the mother’s inability to integrate the parenting strategies provided by the Director of Youth Protection over the years; • Moreover, the mother continues not to be transparent nor does she cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection. • The father expressed that he is committed to having the child entrusted to him on a long term basis. [ 4 ] The case of the child and that of his siblings proceeded on October 2, 3 and November 20, 2013, and January 16, 2014. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child remain entrusted to his father’s care and that a social follow-up be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The father admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures.

The father confirms that he has been separated from the mother of his older children for 13 years. He has been taking care of X on his own since the child was entrusted to him. The father agrees to continue collaborating with DYP. [ 7 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and consents to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. However, the mother denies being physically abusive towards her children.

Concerning the incident that occurred on November 24, 2012, the mother testifies that D and C were fighting and that she told C that he was older and knew better then to play roughly. She states that she disciplined them, but denies hitting them. [ 8 ] The mother testifies that she moved back to Town A on October 18, 2013, in order for the child’s sibling, C, to go to school.

The mother says that she collaborates with DYP and that her apartment is adequate to receive her younger children on weekends. [ 9 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. [ 10 ] The father’s parental capacity assessment was conducted by Dr. Catherine Cloutier, psychologist, and the report is dated November 12, 2013. The results of the WAIS-IV show that the verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning of the father is extremely low, as is his working memory.

Verbal comprehension shows deficit in all areas of functioning, such as verbal concept formation and reasoning, word knowledge and verbal concept formation. Social judgment is also assessed as being deficient, such as the capacity to understand the social meaning of different situations.

As for the adaptive behaviour, the father is functioning at 77 percentile, which is the above average range of functioning. [ 11 ] During the interview monitoring the parental capacity, the eye contact was maintained and the psychologist noted that the father's thinking processes were slower due to anxiety and intellectual limits. Therefore, the father struggles to express his thoughts clearly. [ 12 ] Capacity to find solutions to problems is limited and therefore the father may have difficulty obtaining services in the community. The father denies any use of alcohol or drugs.

He accepts his new parental responsibility and speaks positively but superficially of his son. The parent child observations show that X is invested in his play and gives little attention to his father. X sits near his father who observes him play but participates minimally in his son’s play. The father displays passiveness or interacts verbally in a somewhat distant interaction. [ 13 ] The psychologist recommends that due to the father’s limitations he may have some difficulty meeting the child’s needs and therefore DYP’s involvement is recommended for the next year.

Furthermore, the father is not expressive of his emotions and the psychologist recommends that the father engage in a play group with his son to help him engage more actively in the interaction with X. [ 14 ] The mother's psychiatric evaluation was conducted by Dr. Michel Gil, psychiatrist, in January 2013. [ 15 ] The psychiatrist mentions that the mother arrived on time, that orientation and sensorial elements are preserved and that no disassociative elements were observed . The mother displays a certain distractibility, compatible with her diagnosis of ADHD.

The mother presents no suicidal ideations or ideas of violence. However, social and practical judgement seems affected by some immaturity and self- criticism is partial. The mother has had seven children and many voluntary termination of pregnancies with a number of fathers. She basically raised her children on her own. [ 16 ] The psychiatrist established the following diagnosis: Axe I : Trouble déficitaire de l’attention avec hyperactivité vraisemblablement responsable d’une

partie de son hyperactivité et quelques difficultés organisationnelles (retards, un certain éparpillement et un certain degré d’impulsivité); on retrouve également des antécédents de dyslexie. Axe II : au niveau de la personnalité, on retrouve quelques traits de personnalité du groupe B avec expression émotionnelle intense, quelques aspects carentiels et impulsivité.

Axe III : non contributif. Axe IV : . monoparentalité, sept enfants; . placement récent des enfants; . interactions difficiles avec les services de protection de la jeunesse; . réticence historique pour les traitements médicaux. Axe V : ÉGF à 70. [ 17 ] The psychiatrist concludes that the mother does not present any pathologies that could justify a reference or entrustment to a specialised setting. He recommends that a medication be tried for her ADHD, in order to increase her efficiency and enhance her organisational skills.

However, the mother refuses to take medication and this type of treatment would not compensate for all of her emotional and relationship difficulties. [ 18 ] The Court heard a numbers of witnesses during the four days of hearing. The Court also read the reports and addendums filed by the Director of Youth Protection as proof of the adolescent’s situation. [ 19 ] On October 10, 2012, the Court declared the security and development of the child compromised under

section 38 b) 2), risk of neglect, and e) 2), risk of physical abuse, of the Youth Protection Act . A new signalement was received on November 28, 2012, concerning an incident that would have occurred on November 24, 2012, at the mother’s home. [ 20 ] The signalement was retained under

section 38 e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act for Y, Z and C and under

section 38 e) 2) of the Youth Protection Act for E. Z and Y both reported clearly to the youth worker that their mother hits them and their siblings and uses foul language when they misbehave. [ 21 ] Z reported that his mother hits him with an open hand on his arms, back and bum and with a closed fist on the back of his head and the back of his neck. The child said that he has seen his mother hit his siblings, except for X. [ 22 ] Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, Z stated that D and C were fighting and that his mother grabbed C by the collar and hit him repeatedly.

Z says he remembers this incident as C cried because he was wearing his favourite shirt, which was ripped. [ 23 ] Z confirmed to his lawyer that the mother is physically abusive to him and his siblings when they misbehave, except for X. He also confirmed to his lawyer the incident whereby C was hit repeatedly by the mother. [ 24 ] Y reported that her mother hits her with an open hand on her cheek and on her mouth.

She confirmed to her lawyer that her mother is physically abusive to her and her siblings when they misbehave, except for X, and that she uses foul language. [ 25 ] D confirmed to the youth worker on December 18, 2012, and to his lawyer that the mother hit C repeatedly on November 24, 2012, after they had been fighting. [ 26 ] C denied that his mother uses physical discipline towards him or his siblings. Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, he states that he was play-fighting with D. His mother got upset because he accidentally hurt his brother.

His mother yelled and gave him a time-out. [ 27 ] C and E denied that their mother is physically or verbally abusive to them or their siblings; [ 28 ] The mother denied using physical discipline, but acknowledged that she uses foul language around the children, although she says it is never directed at them. [ 29 ] The Court finds from the evidence that the child is at risk of physical abuse by his mother. [ 30 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s situation has changed very little since the last Court order, October 10, 2012.

The family has received services from DYP since 2008 and concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance, physical abuse and the mother’s instability. Although the mother has said, on numerous occasions, that she is willing to collaborate with DYP, she continues to miss meetings with the youth workers and not to collaborate in a transparent manner. [ 31 ] The mother is currently living in Ville A in a four and half room apartment with her spouse, G, and her mother. She is currently living on welfare and has not worked since March 2013 when she quit her job at [Company A].

The mother states that she is currently looking for employment and wants to complete her hotel reception program. [ 32 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his father’s care with a social follow-up for one year. The father will need to collaborate with DYP in his son’s best interest. [ 33 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT:

[ 34 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 35 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X under

section 38 b) 2) and e) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to his father’s care for a period of one year; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary, after discussion with the parents; [ 38 ] ORDERS that certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother and AUTHORIZES the father to sign for all consents pertaining to the child for the purpose of daycare, assessments, medical and dental services; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his situation; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to attend daycare; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all forms of physical and verbal violence towards the child, including threat of physical harm; [ 42 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from making denigrating comments regarding the father and the father’s family to the child; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling available through her local CLSC; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the father follow the recommendations of the parental capacity assessment conducted by Dr.

Catherine Cloutier; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the father join a play group with his son or a support group where they can participate together; [ 46 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the Director be authorized to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family; [ 48 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of one year; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 50 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed April 25, 2014 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Claudine Du Sablon Counsel for the child Me Richard Benoit Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 2 and 3, 2013, November 20, 2013, and January 16, 2014