2021 QCCQ 5738, 2021 QCCQ 5738

Protection de la jeunesse — 212208 2021 QCCQ 5738 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 455-41-001254-192 DATE: February 25, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF: X Born on [...], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A Applicant -and- A -and- B Child’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [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.). Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the Court to declare that the security and development of the child X are considered in danger on the grounds of physical abuse and educational neglect. [ 2 ] This judicial process lasted over 15 months. Throughout the different hearings, the mother was always present and represented by a lawyer. The father was absent and not represented.

He is absent from the child’s life. [ 3 ] The Court will describe the evolution of the situation, the judicial process, the evidence and its final analysis. The situation of compromission and its evolution The family situation and previous intervention of the Director [ 4 ] In September 2019, when the report was made to the Director, the child was living with his mother, his half-sibling Y and his mother’s partner, Mr.

C. [ 5 ] The mother has been benefitting from the services from the Director for Y and X since January 2018 on the ground of educational neglect. [ 6 ] In January 2019, X’s file was closed as his security and development was no longer deemed compromised. [ 7 ] The family also benefitted from the services of an educator from February 2018 until March 2019. Period extending from September until November 2019 - The new report

[ 8 ] On September 17, 2019, the Director retained a report regarding a situation of physical abuse from the mother’s spouse, Mr. C (hereinafter Mr. C), for X and Y, and for educational neglect due to the mother’s tolerance of inappropriate behaviour towards the children. [ 9 ] This report came after some verbalizations from X in school. [ 10 ] On October 1, 2019, X and Y were interviewed by the police in accordance with the multi-sectorial agreement. [ 11 ] Y’s interview was interrupted after the investigator saw that the child’s language delays and comprehension were impeding on the process. [ 12 ] X revealed that his “dad” (Mr.

C) is a bad person and that he hurts him. [ 13 ] The child told about events when Mr. C hit him in the face. [ 14 ] The mother first denied these events, then corroborated most of the facts regarding the time X was punished when he urinated on the toilet seat and the floor. [ 15 ] She also confirmed having witnessed Mr. C yelling at X when the child had put sand and rocks on another person’s vehicle. [ 16 ] Globally, she admits that Mr. C has difficulty managing his anger, yells at the children and intervenes in a rough manner. [ 17 ] She confirms having often told Mr.

C to lower his voice with the children as he often yells at them. She also says that she told him not to grab the children by their face. [ 18 ] Y’s father says that his son had told him in August 2019 that the bruise he observed on his arm had been done by Mr. C. [ 19 ] On October 10, 2019, Mr. C was arrested and released with a prohibition of contacts regarding X and Y. [ 20 ] The evaluation report, drafted on October 15, 2019, concludes that the report was founded and the Director ask that the motive of physical abuse be retained by the court as well as educational neglect from the mother for tolerating Mr.

C’s unreasonable methods of upbringing. [ 21 ] At the time, Y’s file was under judicial revision. [ 22 ] When X’s situation was judicialized anew, it was also joined to Y’s judicial process. - X’s and the mother’s evolution [ 23 ] X is attending school and is currently in Grade 2 as he failed his first grade. Due to his important academic delays and difficulties, X has been placed in a mixed classroom of Grades 1 and 2 students.

He is still learning numbers and letters. [ 24 ] X is on a waiting list for an evaluation concerning the possibility of an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). [ 25 ] In the school setting, X has been having important behavioural difficulties since the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year.

He is described as an aggressive child who needs to be removed from the classroom as a consequence for his actions. [ 26 ] The child can growl, yell, jump on desks, push chairs, breaks his crayons in half, does not listen and is rude to the teacher. [ 27 ] Furthermore, he has difficulty staying in place and participating in the school program. [ 28 ] Although a medication is prescribed, it is unclear if he takes it regularly which is why the school started administering it. [ 29 ] Right away, the school staff saw a significant improvement in the child’s behaviour and his availability to stimulation.

His aggression stopped and he was able to spend the entire day in class. [ 30 ] The mother was generally collaborating and participating to the different follow-ups but had a hard time maintaining rules and consequences at home. [ 31 ] At the time, she was not recognizing Mr.

C’s physical abuse towards the children and tended to minimize the impact of his yelling and impulsive behaviours. [ 32 ] It was reflected to her that she had been involved with different partners who had violence issues and was referred to resources for women victim of conjugal violence. [ 33 ] Y’s father also claimed that Y and X had been telling him that Mr. C was mean to them. [ 34 ] By November 21, 2019, the Director’s recommendations were still to maintain the child at home with his mother at the exclusion of Mr. C, forbidding any contact with him and to pursue the social follow-up for six months.

Period extending from December 2019 to June 2020 [ 35 ] On December 12, 2019, the Court measured the extent of the evidence to be heard as the mother and Mr. C were denying the new motives of compromission. [ 36 ] The Court also rendered a provisional order entrusting the children to their mother at the exclusion of Mr. C, allowing

supervised contacts between X and Mr. C but forbidding any contact between the later and Y. [ 37 ] At that time, the Court learns that the mother is pregnant with Mr. C’s child. [ 38 ] The mother gave birth on [...], 2020, to a baby boy, Z. His situation was taken in charge by the Director at birth and a third proceeding joined Y’s and X’s judicial files. [ 39 ] The hearing was to proceed on March 24, 2020, but then the pandemic caused more delays. [ 40 ] The mother got involved in a follow-up with Horizon pour Elle which she started in February 2020. [ 41 ] Mr.

C had started a follow-up at Entraide pour Hommes last November and was attending meetings once a month. [ 42 ] During all this time, the mother’s position and Mr.

C’s evolved and discussions for a possible agreement were ongoing. [ 43 ] But after a revision table meeting, the Director’s recommendations changed as they were now advocating placement in a foster home for both Y and X. [ 44 ] This reverse of recommendation was motivated by the fact that Y’s and X’s situation were not progressing, despite all the services involved. [ 45 ] After a period of improvement, X’s behaviour was still so problematic in school that it prevented him to learn academically. [ 46 ] During the winter of 2020, the Director started to discuss with the mother the possibility of a placement. [ 47 ] After many discussions, the mother opposed the placement. [ 48 ] In the end only, Z’s file was settled because in his case, the Director recommended that the baby be maintained with his mother. [ 49 ] On June 18, 2020, the Court homologated the agreement reached in Z’s file. [ 50 ] In this agreement, the mother and Mr.

C recognized the grounds of compromission for Z, namely serious risk of physical abuse and serious risk of neglect. [ 51 ] These motives were based on the factual situation reported in September 2019 regarding Y’s and X’s files and connected to the situation of physical abuse and educational neglect. [ 52 ] Thus by this agreement, the mother and Mr. C legally recognized the new grounds of compromission for Y and X.

Period extending from July 2020 until February 2021 [ 53 ] The hearing for the two children proceeded on August 20, 2020. [ 54 ] At this hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the psycho-educator from the CRDI. She mentioned that despite their follow- up since 2017, Y’s behaviour does not improve. [ 55 ] The mother tells her that all is well at home and is not asking for services at home. [ 56 ] At the end of that day, the Court ordered for the file to be continued at a later date in November 2020. [ 57 ] The Court maintained the children with their mother, at the exclusion of Mr.

C as an interim measure, declaring security and development compromised. [ 58 ] On October 8, 2020, the Director seized the Court with a motion to revise the provisional measures for Y and X because the mother and Mr. C were not respecting the court order. [ 59 ] More particularly, the current provisional order was that the child was entrusted to his mother at the exclusion of Mr. C. The contacts between him and Mr.

C were thus suspended. [ 60 ] The Director also seized the Court with an application for revision and provisional measures for Z, requesting the baby’s placement in a foster home, in view of the new facts discovered. [ 61 ] Since June 2020, the mother lived in her own apartment with her three children X, Y and Z. [ 62 ] During the past months, it appeared that Mr. C had been residing temporarily in a trailer located on a campground. [ 63 ] The delegate had been recently informed by a mother’s neighbour that Mr.

C is often at the apartment, but leaves before the delegate’s visits. [ 64 ] During a meeting with Y on October 8, 2020, he confirmed that “C” (Mr.

C) lives with them, adding that he was the one who woke him up that morning. [ 65 ] When confronted, the mother categorically denied that Mr. C was in contact with the children without supervision. [ 66 ] The mother explained that he still lives at the campground and only comes to the apartment to shower when she and the children are absent.

[ 67 ] The mother added that he attended the morning routine via Facetime although the delegate had warned the mother that she could not allow contact with Y, even via Facetime, considering the court orders. [ 68 ] On October 9, the mother’s neighbour exhibited a video showing Mr. C on the premises, holding Z in his arms, without the presence of any delegate. [ 69 ] The Director thus alleged that the mother and Mr.

C had not been transparent concerning their relationship and did not respect the court orders. [ 70 ] On October 9, 2020, an immediate protective measure was applied, entrusting Y and X to a foster family and Z to another. [ 71 ] On October 13, 2020, the Court rendered a provisional order entrusting the child to a foster home, without any admissions, as the parties agreed to present their evidence on November 19, 2020, at the final hearing. [ 72 ] The contacts with the parents were to be supervised and all contacts with Mr.

C forbidden. [ 73 ] On November 19, 2020, the mother had revised her position and did not contest the content of the Director’s reports. [ 74 ] She asked that family members be evaluated to care for Y and X, namely the maternal grandmother. As for Z, she wants him entrusted to her sister. [ 75 ] Y’s father agreed with the mother’s position suggesting that his son and X be entrusted to the maternal grandmother. He also asked for contacts with Y without supervision and contacts with X. [ 76 ] X’s lawyer mentioned that the child did not want contact with Y’s father. [ 77 ] Mr.

C was asking that Z be entrusted to the maternal aunt. [ 78 ] The delegate testified that they had considered the maternal grandmother before as a possible significant person to care for the children.

At the time, she had mentioned that it was impossible because of her work as a truck driver. [ 79 ] On November 2 nd , she changed her mind and decided that she would quit her job by the end of November. [ 80 ] When met by the delegate, she mentioned that she would also move in with her partner. [ 81 ] When asked if he had any criminal record, she said that he had a DIU and nothing else. [ 82 ] When verified, the man’s criminal record indicates two DIU convictions in 2013 and 2017 and two assaults in 2008 and 2010. [ 83 ] The grandmother also has previous involvement with Youth protection for her own children. [ 84 ] Although the children know their grandmother, they are not requesting to see her. [ 85 ] Considering all this, a positive recommendation is unlikely to come from the Resources Department. [ 86 ] As for the maternal aunt, the parents had refused this possibility at a revision table. [ 87 ] On last November 10 th , the grandmother had called the Director to inform them of a conflict between the mother and her sister about money being stolen. [ 88 ] Although she could be viewed as a good foster home placement, the fact that she has a conflictual relationship with her sister is problematic. [ 89 ] Y’s father has had no contact with X who is not requesting any contact with him. [ 90 ] X is ambivalent about contacts with Mr.

C. He is in a loyalty conflict. It appears he had seen him in August 2020. [ 91 ] X’s behaviour was reported as very problematic. He lies and steals even in his new foster home.

The final hearing [ 92 ] The hearing was then continued on February 25, 2021, when it concluded. [ 93 ] The Director’s final recommendations were as follows: that the child be entrusted to a foster family, for a period of six months, authorizes in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with his mother, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director, with the possibility of lifting the supervision if the situation allows it, forbids all contacts between the child and his father, authorized supervised contacts between the child and Mr.

C, upon the modalities determined by the Director, and proposes other measures and a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 94 ] The Director also recommends that the Court orders that X receives specific healthcare and health services required by his situation and that he attends school or another place of learning, and that some recommendations be made to the parents with a social follow-up for a period of six months. [ 95 ] The mother expressed her agreement with the recommendations of the Director.

If there was to be a change of designation of the foster home, she wishes that the maternal grandmother be considered as a plan “B” for custody for both X and Y.

[ 96 ] The father says he wished that his son and X remain together. If they could not be kept jointly in the foster family, he wanted the children to both be entrusted to the maternal grandmother.

He also asked to have contacts with Y and agreed to the supervision. [ 97 ] The child’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence, agrees with the conclusions sought. [ 98 ] The evaluations were not completed for both the grandmother and the aunt for Z as they are on a long waiting list. [ 99 ] Still, with what is known, the Director did not recommend either of them as a resource. [ 100 ] To the previous concerns, they added that the Director does not trust the family’s transparency. Previous court orders had not been respected. [ 101 ] Furthermore, the maternal grandmother does not recognize Mr.

C’s aggressive behaviour towards the children. [ 102 ] The grandmother agrees that the children should not be moved for now but is asking the Court for ordered supervised contacts, every other weekend. [ 103 ] As for the maternal aunt, there is no emotional bond between the child and her. [ 104 ] She says she is neutral about what is said about Mr. C and what he did to the children. When further questioned, she says that she does not believe Mr. C was violent against the children. [ 105 ] Her working

schedule is in the evening so she would have to have Z in daycare at that time. [ 106 ] In cross-examination, when asked about her relationship with the mother, she minimizes their conflictual relationship but admits that one quarrel led to her hitting her sister and criminal charges pressed. [ 107 ] Z is well cared for in his foster home and there is a possibility for adoption. [ 108 ] The foster parents for Y and X are from the CRDI network.

They have four foster children under their care and their own adult son who is profoundly suffering from his ASD. [ 109 ] She is herself a specialized worker for ASD clients. [ 110 ] She states that Y seems to have an intellectual handicap and is currently evaluated by a psychologist to learn his intellectual level. [ 111 ] She describes X as being different from the ASD children. He can lie, steal, be threatening towards others.

He even threatens other students with a knife in the school bus. [ 112 ] X has also been mentioning to the foster mother the violent behaviours that he was the victim of and that he witnessed. [ 113 ] She mentions that she has to protect the other children in her home from him, that is why she questions her involvement on the long-term but will keep him for the current order of six months. [ 114 ] Since his placement, he has generally been functioning well in school and takes his medication. [ 115 ] He was evaluated in child psychiatry and diagnosed with ASD. [ 116 ] As for the mother, ever since she moved in her apartment in June 2020, she had not reactivated her follow-up with Horizon pour Elle in her new region. [ 117 ] It was only on December 1 st that she started a follow-up with La Maison Séjour.

She is participating to the follow-up but has missed two over six scheduled meetings. [ 118 ] Mr. C also stopped attending his follow-up so his file was closed with the resource. Although he claims having called Le Seuil A, it has not been possible to verify. He claims being on a waiting list for services which is very unlikely for this kind of resource. [ 119 ] Despite their signing the agreement in Z’s file, both the mother and Mr. C do not recognize the violence from Mr.

C on the children. [ 120 ] The Court learns that the mother is pregnant with their second child to be born in August 2021. [ 121 ] Since the children have been placed, the couple is living together again. [ 122 ] Mr. C does not recognize having a violent behaviour, only that he yells sometimes. The mother claims there is no conjugal violence. [ 123 ] As for the mother and child supervised contacts, they take place at the mother’s home, once a week, all three children together. [ 124 ] The supervision is still necessary as the mother is not always vigilant with the children. [ 125 ] Also, Mr.

C has been observed as having outbursts toward the mother. She does not react to his behaviour. [ 126 ] The Director has found the father. He refuses to be involved in his son’s life.

[ 127 ] There were three supervised visits organized for X and Mr. C. There was very little interactions between them and Mr. C concentrates more on his son Z. Mr. C has also been observed as being sharp with X. Analysis [ 128 ] Despite all the services involved with the family, the progress made by the mother is not sufficient to envisage a return of the children to their mother’s care. [ 129 ] The level of recognition of Mr.

C’s impulsivity and violent behaviour is insufficient and her personal follow-up has only just started again. [ 130 ] The mother is still considered non-protective of her children by her denial. [ 131 ] She still forms a couple with Mr. C who denies his own problems and has only but very recently started a follow-up. [ 132 ] The couple is expecting yet another child next summer and still cannot manage to care for Z without exposing him to a serious risk of physical abuse and educational neglect. [ 133 ] Furthermore, the mother and Mr.

C will have to improve and develop their parental skills about maintaining a regular routine, stimulation and surveillance of the children. [ 134 ] The mother still has to learn to answer Y’s and X’s special needs. [ 135 ] The grandmother is not a possible resource. The Court shares the Director’s concerns. [ 136 ] Contacts can be organized with her but not at the frequency she is asking. Furthermore, the Public Health guidelines regarding the pandemic will also have to be respected. [ 137 ] The maternal aunt must also be disregarded.

The minimization of her conflictual relationship with the mother and her non- recognition of Mr. C violence against the children are sufficient to stop the process. Her work

schedule is also of concern as well as her lack of emotional bond with Z. [ 138 ] Contacts with Mr. C are to be suspended until he can truly involve himself in a personal follow-up and recognize his violent behaviour towards the children. [ 139 ] Having read the reports and heard the witness’s testimonies, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives generally way to the final recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: GRANTS partially the present application according to its amended conclusions; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger in regards of physical abuse and educational neglect ; ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, for a period of six months; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with his mother, upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director of youth protection, with the possibility of lifting the supervision if the situation allows it; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favour contacts with the maternal grandmother according to the frequency and the modalities determined by the Director of Youth Protection and respecting the Directive regarding the pandemic; FORBIDS all contacts between the child X and his father; FORBIDS all contacts between the child X and Mr.

C; ORDERS that mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies to herself and her child to end the compromising situation; SUSPENDS all contacts between the child and Mr.

C; ORDERS that the child receive specific healthcare and health services; ORDERS that the child attend a school or another place of learning; RECOMMENDS that the mother pursuits steps to address her conjugal dynamics, as long as deemed necessary by the professional; ORDERS that the parents participate actively to the measures aimed at correcting the situation; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of six months;

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. M e Christine Loubier Represented by M e Sara De Castro Counsel for the DYP M e Caroline Rosa Counsel for the youth M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: February 25, 2021 Exhibits deposed: D-8 Date of written judgment: May 14, 2021