2012 QCCQ 18490, 2012 QCCQ 18490

Protection de la jeunesse — 126163 2012 QCCQ 18490 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-021046-081 N°: 525-41-021045-083 N°: 525-41-021047-089 N°: 525-41-021043-088 DATE: October 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1997 - and - Y Born on […], 1999 - and - Z Born on […], 2000 - and - A Born on […], 2007 - and - B - and - C (father of Y and Z) - and - D (father of

A) Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 10, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with four motions for revision of orders rendered February 16, 2011, entrusting the children to their mother’s care, along with other measures and a social follow-up until March 1, 2012. [ 3 ] In January 2012, the Director of Youth Protection filed motions for extension followed by motions for provisional measures asking the Court, amongst other things, to order the mother to collaborate with social services and to allow the youth protection delegate access to the children when required, as well as access to information regarding the children. [ 4 ] The cases were continued to March 22, 2012.

On that date, DYP asked for a postponement as new signalements had been received on March 21, 2012. The postponement was granted and the measures ordered on February 16, 2011, were maintained. The next hearing was set for May 1, 2012.

[ 5 ] On April 30, 2012, the Director of Youth Protection filed motions for revision and compulsory foster care of the children. At the hearing of May 1, 2012, the Court rejected the motions for compulsory foster care and the cases were set for June 8, 2012. [ 6 ] Amended motions for revision and extension were filed on May 25, 2012. The Court heard a number of witnesses on June 8, 2012, and declared still compromised the security and development of all four children.

The cases were continued to July 26, 2012. [ 7 ] On July 26, 2012, considering the mother’s lack of cooperation with DYP and the fact that she had not presented herself to the random drug tests asked by DYP, the Court ordered that the children be entrusted to foster care until the next court date set for October 10, 2012. [ 8 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the amended motions for revision are the following: • The mother has made it clear that she does not want A Youth and Family Centres in her family’s life and expected that the Director of Youth Protection's involvement would end on March 1, 2012, which corresponds to the end of the Court order rendered on February 16, 2011; • There have been significant issues related to lateness and absenteeism of the children from school; • The children’s progress in school deteriorated when they did not attend consistently, on time and organized; • The mother’s availability and willingness to actively address and remedy the issues related to school attendance and lateness for school remains inconsistent; • These issues have had a significant impact on the children’s academic development and have been largely outside their capacity to improve without the mother taking the lead in these matters; • The mother was offered the services of an educator to assist and support with setting up routines for the children but she clearly stated that she did not want this intervention; • Between June 2, 2011, and April 26, 2012, a total of seven signalements were retained for evaluation concerning the family; • On [...], 2011, the mother gave birth to a baby boy and, alone, has now seven children under her care; • The ongoing presence of these issues presents an important risk to the children’s development; • The mother continues to struggle with meeting her children’s basic physical needs; • For example, until his placement at the end of April 2012, the children's sibling, E, was frequently not prepared when he arrived at school as he did not have his lunch nor his school bag; E was also very tired, unkempt and not properly dressed; • E reported that he saw bugs on his mattress at home and he was observed to have insect bites on his arms and legs on April 26, 2012; • Z and F have also often arrived at school unprepared; • In addition to this, the mother continues to use physical discipline; • In April 2012, E reported that the mother uses and threatens to use physical discipline on him and on all his siblings, except for G; E reported that G gets pinched by the mother; • In April 2012, F also reported being physically disciplined by the mother; • The mother continues to consume drugs, as she tested positive on April 12, 2012, and May 10, 2012; • The mother continues to not be transparent and cooperative with the Director of Youth Protection and to not acknowledge any of the risk issues concerning her children; • The mother continues to be very impulsive and to have frequent anger outburst. [ 9 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to foster care for a period of nine months and that the family be provided with a social follow-up for the same period. [ 10 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion, but contests the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection.

The mother is asking for the children to be entrusted to her care. [ 11 ] The mother testifies that she has moved to Town A and that her apartment is adequate to receive her children. The mother says that she agrees to collaborate with DYP and to undergo random drug testing. She says that the children want to return to her care. Furthermore, that she receives support from her spouse, Mr. H, with whom she started cohabitating in August 2012, to look after her children. [ 12 ] Mr. C, Y and Z’s father, was not present at the hearings. Mr. C’s whereabouts are unknown and he has no contacts with his children.

The Court proceeded in his absence. [ 13 ] Mr. D, A’s father, was not present at the hearings and he does not participate in the social follow-up. The Court proceeded in his absence.

[ 14 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in the children’s best interest. Me Sepinwall considers that the mother is not in a position to answer all of the children’s needs and that she has not collaborated adequately with DYP. However, Me Sepinwall informs the Court that the children wish to return home and to have more contacts with their mother and siblings. [ 15 ] X testifies that he wishes to return to his mother’s care.

He says that he is not well cared for in his foster home and that he receives no allowance to pay for his everyday expenses. [ 16 ] The evidence reveals that when the children were in their mother’s care they were regularly absent or late for school. A marked improvement was observed after the children integrated their foster homes. Physical abuse [ 17 ] On June 8, 2012, one of the children's sibling, E, testified that he wanted to return home to live with his mother.

When asked what needed to be fixed in order for him to go home, he answered that he wanted his mother to stop smoking in the house and to stop hitting him and his brothers and sisters. [ 18 ] E explained that his mother hits him with a belt or with her hands. That she hits him on his hands and his back. E also explained that he was hit with a spatula and that he saw F being hit with this instrument. [ 19 ] E gave examples of when his mother gets angry. For example, when he throws things with his friends or when he goes outside with his brothers when he is not allowed.

He also stated that when his mother sleeps and he wakes her up, she gets very angry and hits him. He went on to say that he saw his brothers and sisters being hit on more and one occasion, except for X and G. [ 20 ] E says that his mother smokes cigarettes in the house and that she smokes weed on the balcony and in the basement. When she smokes weed, her boyfriend “H” is present. [ 21 ] E reported and explained to his teacher and to the youth worker that he was hit by his mother.

According to the evidence, the child reported quite regular physical abuse by the mother. [ 22 ] In her testimony, the mother admitted hitting E with a corduroy belt or with an open hand, but only when he had done something wrong. The mother states that she never physically abuses her children. [ 23 ] The child was very credible in his testimony and capable of giving examples of when his mother gets angry. Furthermore, the child wants to return home, but wishes for things to change.

As for the mother, she is impulsive and has had anger outbursts in front of the school authorities and the youth workers. [ 24 ] On April 26, 2012, Ms. [Social Worker 1], youth worker, met with F, another of the children's sibling, for a face to face unannounced interview at his school. F mentioned that his mother is a good mother and that he loves her very much. He reported to the worker that his mother hits him with an open hand so as he will listen. In her evaluation, Ms. [Social Worker 1] reported the following: [1] F reported when they misbehave they go to their room.

Sometimes they get “licks” not beatings though (he motioned an open hand) on the hand, wrist, shoulder, back or buttocks, “so they listen” F reported that his mother is trying to “quit everything”; when asked to clarify, he stated cigarettes. When questioned further as to the word “everything” he indicated his mother leaves the home to smoke weed. He then stated “it is bad for your lungs”. When asked to clarify what he meant by his mother goes away, he had no answer. [ 25 ] The Court finds from the evidence that Z and A were victim of physical abuse by their mother.

However, there is no evidence that X or Y were victim of physical abuse by their mother since the last Court order on February 16, 2011. Conclusion [ 26 ] The family has been followed by DYP since 2008 and there have been twelve signalements during DYP's involvement with the family. Concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance and the mother’s instability.

Furthermore, the mother's collaboration with DYP has been inadequate, especially since the last Court order. [ 27 ] At the last Court hearing, the mother had her spouse, H, testify to confirm that he helps her with the children. He informed the Court that he has been living with the mother for several months, including at her apartment in Town B. The Immigration status of Mr. H in Canada was not clear and he currently does not work. [ 28 ] This testimony contradicted the mother's who had stated that Mr. H had only been living with her since August 2012. Furthermore, E confirmed that Mr.

H, that the children call "H", smokes weed with his mother. [ 29 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to foster care for a period of nine months. The mother has demonstrated that she is not in a position to answer her children’s needs, as there are long standing and chronic issues around neglect.

The mother must address these issues before the children can return to her care. [ 30 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 32 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X, Y and Z and A, for the motives identified in the previous orders;

[ 33 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the children, Z and A under

section 38 e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the children, X, Y and Z and A be entrusted to foster care for a period of nine months; [ 35 ] ORDERS that these foster home placement remain confidential to the mother; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that a more structured foster home be found for X and Z; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that Y and A, be maintained in the same foster home; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after discussion with the mother; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between A and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between Y and Z and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that academic support be provided to X and Z; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the children receive all health care services required by their situation; [ 43 ] ORDERS the psychoeducational assessment of the adolescent, Y, and for the recommendations for the assessment to be followed; [ 44 ] ORDERS the psychological assessment of the adolescent, X, and for the recommendations to be followed; [ 45 ] ORDERS the mother to undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent to do so; [ 46 ] ORDERS the mother to submit to a psychiatric assessment and to follow the recommendations made and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo a psychiatric assessment and RECOMMENDS this assessment be done by Dr Gill; [ 47 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all mood altering substances unless prescribed by her doctor; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling available through her local CLSC; [ 49 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all forms of violence, verbal or physical, including threats of physical harm during the contacts with the children; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to have access to the children at the home of the fathers or the mother and at school; [ 51 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to make unannounced home visits at the mother’s home; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that DYP meet with Mr.

H and RECOMMENDS that Mr.

H collaborate with DYP; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with all of the services providers working with the family; [ 54 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to sign all needed consents pertaining to the children for the purpose of education, assessment, therapeutic interventions, medical and dental services, in the event that the mother or the fathers cannot be reached within in a reasonable delay; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 56 ] RECOMMENDS that the files of all the children continue to be under the responsibility of A Youth and Family Centre and for a worker to be assigned to the mother in the C; [ 57 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their mother for a period of nine months; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X, Y and Z and A, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 59 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed December 21, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.

AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Counsel for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: March 22, May 1, June 8, July 26 and October 10, 2012