2014 QCCQ 14085, 2014 QCCQ 14085

Protection de la jeunesse — 142133 2014 QCCQ 14085 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001702-148 DATE: April 24, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on […], 2005 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits a motion asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X, […] years old, endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i), 38 b)1° iii), 38

c) and 38

d) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and represented by Mtre. Michel Grenier and Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault acts on behalf of X. Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The motion was served to the father who is currently detained in TOWN A. His usual counsel was also informed of the present motion and tried to reach Mr. B, left him messages but no avail. Evidence reveals that the child does not know her father and that he has never been really involved with his daughter.

Given this evidence, and the consents of the mother and the child, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 4 ] All of the allegations of the petition but one, are admitted by the mother. These allegations are: 4.1. The father is not regularly involved in the life of the child; 4.2. The mother is the main caregiver of the child. (The Court has to point out the fact that the child denies this allegation saying it was mainly her grandmother who took care of her in the past); 4.3. Since March 2012, the child's sibling, Y, is placed in foster care after a report to the effect that Mr.

C, the mother's boyfriend, had sexually abused her; 4.4. On June 7, 2012, Mr. C was arrested and charged for sexual assault; 4.5. On August 23, 2012 the security and development of Y were declared endangered under both grounds 38 d) 1 and 2 of the Youth Protection Act ; 4.6. At that time, the child and her brothers were living at the maternal grandparents' residence; 4.7. In fall 2012, the child went living with the mother after she was given a house; 4.8. On several occasions, Mr.

C was seen at the mother's residence by the Social Services as if he was living there even though the mother was denying that he was living with her;

4.9. On July 24, 2013, an agreement under voluntary measures was signed by the parents in order to place the X in foster home for a period of 6 months; 4.10. The child was placed because of the risk of sexual abuse from Mr. C and because of the neglect she was victim of; 4.11. The mother was not able to provide proper care and hygiene to the child; 4.12. The child was regularly not attending school; 4.13. On October 26, 2013, during a stay of the child and her sister Y at the mother's residence, the Youth Protection had to intervene because the mother was intoxicated; 4.14.

On November 2013, during another stay of the child and her sister Y at the mother's residence, the Youth Protection had to intervene again because the mother was intoxicated; 4.15. The collaboration of the parents with the Youth Protection services is irregular; 4.16. Since January 7, 2014, the father is not reachable; 4.17. As for her alcohol consumption, the mother declares that she quit drinking last December. [ 5 ] The Court has also in evidence that the mother has resumed her relationship with Mr.

C. [ 6 ] The mother, due to her personality, is not able to protect X against any potential sexual abuse from her spouse. Hubert Van Gijseghem, PhD. psychologist, assessed the mother last August. This evaluation clearly shows that the mother has a dependant personality and will prioritize her own needs at the expense of her child's needs. [ 7 ] Some parts of this assessment must be quoted: « Mrs A presents a Dependent Personality structure in that she leans on others for nurturance and support and submits easily to the wishes of others.

Being limited cognitively and having at least mild identity problems, she effaces herself to be accepted and "adopted" by someone who she sees as stronger than herself. Parental capacities seem limited, by her own admission and she is indeed at risk of putting a "nurturing" relationship with a man on a higher priority level than the interest of her children. Hence, probably, her denial of abuse. She however states that she now admits the abuse since her boyfriend fled and abandoned her. She indeed struggles with identity problems and some bizarre thinking, especially about physical or somatic symptoms.

Her problems interfere with sound judgment. The M.M.P.I-2 personality test suggests that a psychotherapeutic intervention will be complicated by the reticence of this person to recognize the psychological basis of her symptoms. If the therapist imposes himself/herself too quickly, the subject will abandon therapy. This kind of person also expects the therapist to fulfill her needs for dependence and to furnish precise solutions to all problems.

Because of the high suggestibility of such a person, an approach based on suggestion could be beneficial. [1] » [ 8 ] As for the measures, the Director of Youth Protection recommends that X be placed in a foster family for a period of 6 months. The mother agrees with this measure. [ 9 ] It is doubtful that the period of 6 months will be long enough to allow the mother to make significative change in her personality structure in order to be able to develop critical judgment towards adults that could be a danger to her children. [ 10 ] If the mother chooses to maintain her relationship with Mr.

C, there must not be any reintegration of X with her mother. [ 11 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i), b) 1° iii), 38

c) and 38 d) 2° of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 14 ] ORDERS the placement of X, born on […], 2005, in a foster family for a period of 6 months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and her family for the same period; [ 16 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to prepare a life plan for the child; [ 17 ] ORDERS the mother to seek help for substances abuse; [ 18 ] ORDERS that any access rights with the mother be favoured and supervised by the Director of the Youth Protection as for the frequency and the modalities, including the presence of a third party; [ 19 ] ORDERS the mother to be and remain sober when in presence of the child; [ 20 ] ORDERS the mother not to put the child in presence of people under the influence of alcohol;

[ 21 ] ORDERS the mother not to put the child in presence of C; [ 22 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate and meet with the Youth Protection worker on regular intervals; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the birth certificate of X be produced within 45 days of this judgment; [ 24 ] ORDERS to any police force to collaborate with the execution of the court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Gabriel Gaudreault Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Myriam Gaudreault Counsel for the child Mtre. Michel Grenier Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: March 27, 2014