2017 QCCQ 17669, 2017 QCCQ 17669

Protection de la jeunesse — 177943 2017 QCCQ 17669 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000415-167 DATE: October 12, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2016 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 3, 2016, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and represented by the same lawyer.

They consent to the filing of the reports to value as testimony of their authors. [ 3 ] Concerning the recommendations of the DYP, they agree with most of them except for these three conclusions: • Orders the parents to submit themselves to random urine drug screening tests; • Order the supervision of the contacts by a person designated by the DYP as long as deemed necessary; • Authorizes the professionals involved in the situation to exchange information between themselves regarding the child; [ 4 ] The child is not present but duly represented by a lawyer.

Counsel expresses his consent to the recommendations suggested by the DYP after having acknowledged the evidence and the position of the parents. [ 5 ] What is the situation of the child since the last measure ordered? [ 6 ] The child is one year old. She was recently diagnosed by her doctor as having considerable motor development delay. She suggests putting in place services for the child needs. There is a lack of stimulation in the child’s environment. [ 7 ] Since the placement of the child, the parents benefit from visitations with their daughter. During the visits, they answer adequately to her basic needs.

They show her affection and are able to secure the child when needed. In fact, they took good care of her. Sometimes, the father does not stay for the whole time. Moreover, the parents missed many visits with the child. Under no circumstance did they notice the parents being under the influence during visitations. [ 8 ] The father is intimidating and arrogant towards the professionals of the DYP. When asked to calm down he becomes verbally

aggressive and violent. When they try to make recommendations to him concerning the child he gets mad and blames everyone except himself. [ 9 ] The father got involve with professionals to work on his issues, but does not seem to attend all the scheduled appointments. He also misses some meetings with his probation officer. Despite, the fact that this could have serious consequences for him, he does not show up when planned. He demonstrates an aggressive and defiant attitude towards the probation officer.

It is clear that the father has a real problem with authority. [ 10 ] He spends a lot of time intimidating the youth delegates instead of spending quality time with his daughter. He blames them for the manner in which he acts. He does not take responsibly for his outbursts. He also spends a lot of time talking badly about the foster family’s mother. Once again, instead of caring for his child, he expresses his anger towards people involved with his daughter’s situation. The collaboration of the father is mitigated. Recently, he has shown some improvement with his collaboration.

He is now able to discuss respectfully with the DYP delegates. [ 11 ] The mother, on the other hand, collaborates well. She listens to the recommendations made by the professionals and applies them. She takes care of her daughter properly. However, she lacks autonomy in searching for services on her own such as a social worker for her or a family doctor. She asks the DYP to do it for her instead. She expects other people to do what she should do by herself. She needs to receive some coaching concerning her child such as using adequate stimulation for the baby in understanding her development stage.

The mother has intellectual limitations that affect her parental capacities. [ 12 ] What about the three recommendations for which the parents disagree? Random testing [ 13 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the parents asked that the conclusion requested about ordering them to submit themselves to random urine drug screening tests, be a recommendation. It’s clear that the Court cannot oblige someone to do such tests but it is possible to recommend it. [ 14 ] However, during his testimony while being cross-examined, the father changed his mind.

He indicated to the Court that he is not using drugs anymore and that he will agree to go through random drug screening tests. Therefore, the court takes act of his consent to that effect. [ 15 ] For the mother, she did not mention any consent verbally during her testimony to that matter, so the Court will only recommend it. Supervision [ 16 ] The youth delegate claims that supervision of the father while visiting the child is necessary because of his reactions. Her main worry is the father’s attitude. There is a risk that the father could be violent to the child.

The father uses a violent speech even when in the presence of the child. [ 17 ] When the child cries for a long time, the father goes outside. The father replies when the child cries it is because she is trying to be the boss or manipulates. The youth delegate claims this shows a lack of understanding in the development of the child. There is domestic abuse in the relationship. She noticed this. Even the nurses saw the father denigrate the mother at the hospital when she gave birth, but this was a year ago.

The DYP does not think the mother is able to protect the child if the father acts up and becomes violent towards the child. [ 18 ] The youth delegate also noticed on three occasions, the child was fed with apple sauce and that it was not sufficient. [ 19 ] To complete, the youth delegate says that the father needs to work on his personal issues. During one month, the DYP tried to establish half-supervised visits meaning only the first and the last hour was supervised. They put an end to it because of the father’s behaviour.

In the next months, they will see how it progresses with the contacts. [ 20 ] The father testifies and he admits going outside to take a breath of air when the child cries too much, it is the way he is. He wants the chance to have unsupervised visits with his daughter. He wishes to feel like a real parent. He explains that both the mother and he are involved in many activities to improve their parental skills. He feels that the DYP is always on his back. [ 21 ] Regarding the times when the child was not eating properly, the mother explained the motives.

The explanation was understandable in that situation, the child was not feeling well after her shots. They asked advice to the foster family who recommended they give her apple sauce. Anyway, the proof does not sustain that the child is not fed correctly by her parents. It sometimes happens that parents not always give nutritious meals to a child, it occurs in all families. However, the Court is more preoccupied with the father’s reaction more than the fact the child ate apple sauce three times. [ 22 ] Even if there is no evidence about him being aggressive or making violent gestures towards the child.

The mother confirms that the father is good with their daughter, still, his behaviour is worrisome and alarming. There are concerns in regard to the father such as, when the child cries the father gets frustrated. He does not look comfortable when the child acts this way. The DYP is afraid of his reaction. [ 23 ] The youth delegate summarises in her psychosocial report [1] , her concerns in regard to the parent’s situation, as follows: “The months to come are crucial in the planning of X’s future life plan. She is still a little one year old baby, who has been place at Mrs C since September 9 th , 2016.

The parents took steps to improve their parental capacities and to resolve their personal issues in the past months. However, the mother didn’t receive a personal follow-up and the father demonstrates a lack of assiduity on his side. We don’t know what their real drugs use is, because they refuse to submit themselves to drug screening tests. Moreover, there are still moments

where the father demonstrates intolerance towards his baby’s normal reactions. In fact, he shows impulsiveness, coarse language and misunderstanding of his child’s developmental stage. Combined to the possible domestic violence or, at least, control from the father, we are still worried about an integration in the natural environment.” [ 24 ] Concerning the reactions of the father, of course, he has a temper but, he is seeking help to move forward and work on his issue but not intensively.

Until he shows some improvement, the supervision is needed because the child is considered extremely vulnerable due to her young age. [ 25 ] For these reasons and for the time being, the supervision is still required.

Since the parents continue seeking help and they seem to have started making some changes in their lives, such as collaborating, the Court thinks that during the present measure if the parents and more particularly the father continue on this positive path, some contacts should be without supervision. [ 26 ] Therefore, the Court recommends these contacts between the child and her parents be permitted sometimes without supervision, if the situation really improves. The father has to change his negative and aggressive attitude, as to in the coming weeks, obtain some contacts with his daughter without supervision.

Exchange of Information [ 27 ] Concerning the conclusion to authorize the professionals involved in the situation to exchange information between themselves regarding the child. The parents are opposed to this recommendation. They fear they will be left apart. They want to be included in the process. [ 28 ] The Court does not think it is appropriate at this point to impose such a conclusion.

In fact the parents expressed their willingness to cooperate with the professionals involved with the child. [ 29 ] Moreover, the evidence does not sustain that the parents do not collaborate when it concerns the child personally. In fact, nowhere in the reports is there mention about the parent refusing to give permission to a professional regarding their daughter. [ 30 ] The only thing the DYP could reproach the parents is the refusal of the father to sign a consent form permitting the DYP to have access to his personal follow-ups with D and E.

For the mother, she refuses to sign a consent to verify her follow-up that she claims having with a social worker. They have the right to refuse to disclose their personal information even if it would be beneficial for the child. [ 31 ] The parents are taking steps to provide a stable and secure environment for their daughter. Both of them are seeking help to work on their issues but they are not consistent with the appointments. They don’t seem to take seriously their follow-ups.

It is impossible to assess the situation since they don’t show up at their sessions and they don’t give access to any information in regards to those follow-ups. The situation of the parents, at this time, does not seem to have evolved much since the last measures. [ 32 ] The child is doing well in her current foster family. She is attached to her foster mother and has a secure bond. However, there are some concerns about that family. There is also a lack of stimulation for the child in that environment. The collaboration is mitigated. She does not return the DYP’s calls.

She does not follow the tasks asked by the DYP concerning the child. At this point, the child has a good bond with this family and we have to consider the impact on the child to move her to another family. [ 33 ] This raises questions in the Court’s mind, if the foster home is a suitable place for the child on a long-term basis. Of Course, the child has a good bond with that family but is it sufficient and appropriate considering her important needs? This will also have to be evaluated in the months to come. [ 34 ] As said previously, the child needs a secure and healthy environment in order to grow adequately.

Considering the lack of progress of the parents and their poor involvement to work on their issues. Even, if recently some positive changes seem to have occurred concerning more specifically the collaboration of the father, it is still too soon to see if it will last. For the time being, their environment is not suitable for the child. [ 35 ] The parents need to get in action and mobilize themselves and collaborate with the services. The father has to stop acting up every time he is not pleased with a situation and the mother has to take her place, or else a life project will have to be established for the child.

She cannot wait for them to get better and she has the right to have a good life for herself. [ 36 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. For the remaining recommendations, under the circumstances and considering the admissions and consent of the parties, the application is well founded. The other suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mrs. C until December 31, 2017; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the contact between the child and her parents take place following an agreement between the parties, including their supervision by a person designated by the DYP as long as deemed necessary; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the family receive professional assistance through an External educator for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP;

[ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to a parental capacity’s assessment; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take an active

part in the services that are offered to them for their personal difficulties; [ 44 ] TAKES ACT of the consent of the father to submit himself to random urine drug screening tests; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS the mother submit herself to random urine drug screening tests; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the child receive all the services her situation requires; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the child’s life plan be clarified; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the DYP and inform them of their current situation; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until December 31, 2017; [ 51 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the parents Date of hearing: August 7, 2017