2021 QCCQ 4598, 2021 QCCQ 4598

Protection de la jeunesse — 212235 2021 QCCQ 4598 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N o : 455-41-001110-170 DATE : February 25, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A Child’s mother -and- B Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 the revision of the court order rendered on February 7, 2019. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the child X still in danger for the motive of educational neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, she maintained the child entrusted to his mother, ordered that the contacts with his father be determined by the Director, ordered that the child attends daycare regularly, and ordered that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of six months. [ 4 ] This judicial revision lasted over 18 months.

Throughout the different hearings, both parents were present and individually represented. [ 5 ] The Court will describe the evolution of the situation, the judicial process, the evidence and its final analysis. Evolution of the situation - P eriod extending from February until August 2019 [ 6 ] Since the last court order, the child remained entrusted to his mother. [ 7 ] In March 2019, it was established that the mother no longer needed a follow-up from the CRDI educator since she was able to

implement the recommendations and make sure X maintained his progress. [ 8 ] He continued to attend daycare on a regular basis until the end of June 2019. [ 9 ] During the 2019 summer, the mother prepared her son’s progressive integration to school which he started in September 2019. [ 10 ] The child had contacts with his father sporadically and occasional phone contact. [ 11 ] The father’s collaboration with the Director was uneven as before. [ 12 ] When the Director revised the situation, he was recommending to pursue the social follow-up for another six months. - P eriod extending from September until November 2019 - T he new report [ 13 ] 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 the child and his sibling Y and for educational neglect due to the mother’s tolerance of inappropriate behaviour towards the children. [ 14 ] This report came after some verbalizations from Y in school. [ 15 ] On October 1, 2019, X and Y were interviewed by the police in accordance with the multi-sectorial agreement. [ 16 ] X’s interview was interrupted after the investigator saw that the child’s language delays and comprehension were impeding on the process. [ 17 ] Y revealed that his “dad” (Mr.

C) is a bad person and that he hurts him. [ 18 ] The child told about events when Mr. C hit him in the face. [ 19 ] The mother first denied these events, then corroborated most of the facts regarding the time Y was punished when he urinated on the toilet seat and the floor. [ 20 ] She also confirmed having witnessed Mr. C yelling at Y when the child had put sand and rocks on another person’s vehicle. [ 21 ] Globally, she admits that Mr. C has difficulty managing his anger, yells at the children and intervenes in a rough manner. [ 22 ] 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. [ 23 ] X’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. [ 24 ] On October 10, 2019, Mr. C was arrested and released with a prohibition of contacts regarding Y and X. [ 25 ] 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 form the mother for tolerating Mr.

C’s unreasonable methods of upbringing. [ 26 ] The hearing of the revision had been delayed because of the new report. [ 27 ] Then Y’s situation was judicialized anew and was also joined to X’s revision judicial process. - X’s and the parent’s evolution [ 28 ] X’s integration at school was not easy. He exhibited crisis almost every day during which he could be violent toward other students and had a lot of difficulty with transitions. He could also use foul language and seek negative attention.

The child needed one on one interventions. [ 29 ] On October 1, 2019, it was decided that a psycho-educator from the CRDI would help the school deal with the child’s disturbing behaviours. [ 30 ] By mid-October 2019, he was only going to school part-time, as per a set schedule. [ 31 ] The mother was generally collaborating and participating to the different follow-ups but had a hard time maintaining rules and consequences at home. [ 32 ] 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. [ 33 ] 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. [ 34 ] As for the father, the worker had a hard time obtaining his collaboration. He missed appointments and could be angry during the ones he attended, asking for a change of worker.

[ 35 ] He also claimed that X and Y had been telling him that Mr. C was mean to them. [ 36 ] The father still did not get involved in the different follow-ups for his child, including the CRDI although it was reflected to him that he needed to understand his son’s condition to better interact with him. [ 37 ] 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. - P eriod extending from December 2019 to June 2020 [ 38 ] 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. [ 39 ] The Court also rendered a provisional order entrusting the children to their mother at the exclusion of Mr. C, allowing supervised contacts between Y and Mr. C, but forbidding any contact between the later and X. [ 40 ] At that time, the Court learns that the mother is pregnant with Mr.

C’s child. [ 41 ] The mother gave birth on [...], 2020 to a baby boy, Y. His situation was taken in charge by the Director at birth and a third proceeding joined X’s and Y’s judicial files. [ 42 ] The hearing was to proceed on March 24, 2020, but then the pandemic caused more delays. [ 43 ] The mother got involved in a follow-up with Horizon pour Elle, which she started in February 2020. [ 44 ] Mr. C had started a follow-up at Entraide pour Hommes last November and was attending meetings once a month. [ 45 ] During all this time, the mother’s position and Mr.

C’s evolved and discussions for a possible agreement were ongoing. [ 46 ] But after a revision table meeting, the Director’s recommendations changed as they were now advocating placement in a foster home for both X and Y. [ 47 ] This reverse of recommendation was motivated by the fact that X’s and Y’s situation were not progressing, despite all the services involved. [ 48 ] His behaviour was still so problematic in school that it prevented him to learn academically. [ 49 ] During the winter of 2020, the Director started to discuss with the mother the possibility of a placement. [ 50 ] After many discussions, the mother opposed the placement. [ 51 ] In the end only, Z’s file was settled because in his case, the Director recommended that the baby be maintained with his mother. [ 52 ] On June 18, 2020, the Court homologated the agreement reached in Z’s file. [ 53 ] In this agreement, the mother and Mr.

C recognised the grounds of compromission for Z, namely serious risk of physical abuse and serious risk of neglect. [ 54 ] These motives were based on the factual situation reported in September 2019 regarding X’s and Y’s files and connected to the situation of physical abuse and educational neglect. [ 55 ] Thus by this agreement, the mother and Mr.

C legally recognised the new grounds of compromission for X and Y. - P eriod extending from July 2020 until February 2021 [ 56 ] The hearing for the two children proceeded on August 20, 2020. [ 57 ] At this hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the psycho-educator from the CRDI. She mentioned that despite their follow- up since 2017, X’s behaviour do not improve. [ 58 ] The mother tells her that all is well at home and is not asking for services at home. [ 59 ] She mentions that the child exhibits a global developmental delay.

His social interactions are problematic. [ 60 ] She also says that the child needs coherent interventions and a secure attachment to calm his outbursts. [ 61 ] The Court was also presented with a report from the Director that indicated that the CRDI professionals were questioning the symptoms they saw in X.

They think that they more likely indicate an attachment trauma than Autism Spectrum Disorder. [ 62 ] The psycho-educator gave examples of these indicators such as the fact that X answers well to encouragement as opposed to a child with ASD. [ 63 ] She says the CRDI recommends a new evaluation of his condition. [ 64 ] The CRDI indicated also that for both conditions, the needs are similar in that the children require a structured environment in every place they go. They also need affection and a lot of attention from all the adults important to him.

[ 65 ] At the end of that day, the Court ordered for the file to be continued at a later date in November 2020. [ 66 ] The Court ordered that the child be assessed for a possible attachment disorder for the child to receive the appropriate services for his needs. [ 67 ] The Court maintained the children with their mother, at the exclusion of Mr. C as an interim measure, declaring security and development compromised. [ 68 ] On October 8, 2020, the Director seized the Court with a motion to revise the provisional measures for X and Y because the mother and Mr.

C were not respecting the court order. [ 69 ] 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. [ 70 ] 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. [ 71 ] Since June 2020, the mother lived in her own apartment with her three children Y, X and Z. [ 72 ] During the past months, it appeared that Mr.

C, had been residing temporarily in a trailer located on a campground. [ 73 ] 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. [ 74 ] During a meeting with X 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. [ 75 ] When confronted, the mother categorically denied that Mr.

C was in contact with the children without supervision. [ 76 ] 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. [ 77 ] The mother added that he attended the morning routine via Facetime although the delegate had warned the mother that she could not allow contacts with X, even via Facetime, considering the court orders. [ 78 ] On October 9 th , the mother’s neighbour exhibited a video showing Mr.

C on the premises, holding Z in his arms, without the presence of any delegate. [ 79 ] The Director thus alleged that the mother and Mr.

C had not been transparent concerning their relationship and did not respect the court orders. [ 80 ] On October 9, 2020, an immediate protective measure was applied, entrusting the X and Y to a foster family and Z to another. [ 81 ] 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. [ 82 ] The contacts with the parents were to be supervised and all contacts with Mr.

C forbidden. [ 83 ] On November 19, 2020, the mother had revised her position and did not contest the content of the Director’s reports. [ 84 ] She asked that family members be evaluated to care for X and Y, namely the maternal grandmother. As for Z, she wants him entrusted to her sister. [ 85 ] The father agreed with the mother’s position suggesting that the child and his half-brother Y be entrusted to the maternal grandmother. He also asked for contacts with X without supervision and contacts with Y. [ 86 ] Y’s lawyer mentioned that the child did not want contact with X’s father. [ 87 ] Mr.

C was asking that Z be entrusted to the maternal aunt. [ 88 ] 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. [ 89 ] On November 2 nd , she changed her mind and decided that she would quit her job by the end of November. [ 90 ] When met by the delegate, she mentioned that she would also move in with her partner. [ 91 ] When asked if he had any criminal record, she said that he had a DIU and nothing else. [ 92 ] When verified, the man’s criminal record indicates two DIU convictions in 2013 and 2017 and two assaults in 2008 and 2010. [ 93 ] The grandmother also has previous involvement with Youth protection for her own children. [ 94 ] Although the children know their grandmother, they are not requesting to see her.

[ 95 ] Considering all this, a positive recommendation is unlikely to come from the Resources Department. [ 96 ] As for the maternal aunt, the parents had refused this possibility at a revision table. [ 97 ] 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. [ 98 ] Although she could be viewed as a good foster home placement, the fact that she has a conflictual relationship with her sister is problematic. [ 99 ] The last contacts between the father and the child was in June 2020.

His collaboration and difficulties remain the same as well as his lack of implication with the different follow-ups for his son.

Regular weekly phone contacts have been set. [ 100 ] He has had no contact with Y who is not requesting any contact with him. - The final hearing [ 101 ] The hearing was then continued on February 25, 2021, when it concluded. [ 102 ] The Director’s final recommendations were as follows: that the Court orders that X be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months and during which the progressive return of X with the mother could be authorized, that supervised contacts with his mother be allowed during his placement upon agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director, with the possibility of lifting the supervision if the situation allows, authorize supervised contacts between the child and his father, according to the modalities set by the Director and forbid all contacts with Mr.

C. [ 103 ] The Director also recommends that the Court orders that X receives specific healthcare and social 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. [ 104 ] 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 X and Y. [ 105 ] The father says he wished that the child and his half-sibling Y 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 for having contacts with X and agreed to the supervision. [ 106 ] The child's lawyer, after hearing the evidence, agrees with the conclusions sought. [ 107 ] The evaluations were not completed for both the grandmother and the aunt for Z as they are on a long waiting list. [ 108 ] Still, with what is known, the Director did not recommend either of them as a resource. [ 109 ] To the previous concerns, they added that the Director does not trust the family’s transparency. Previous court orders had not been respected. [ 110 ] Furthermore, the maternal grandmother does not recognize Mr.

C’s aggressive behaviour towards the children. [ 111 ] The grandmother agrees that the children should not be moved for now but is asking the Court for ordered supervised contacts, every other weekend. [ 112 ] As for the maternal aunt, there is no emotional bond between the child and her. [ 113 ] 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. [ 114 ] Her working

schedule is in the evening so she would have to have Z in daycare at that time. [ 115 ] 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. [ 116 ] Z is well cared for in his foster home and there is a possibility for adoption. [ 117 ] The foster parents for X and Y 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. [ 118 ] She is herself a specialised worker for ASD clients. [ 119 ] She states that X seems to have an intellectual handicap and is currently evaluated by a psychologist to learn his intellectual level. [ 120 ] She describes Y as being different from the ASD children. He can lie, steal, be threatening towards others.

He even threaten other students with a knife in the school bus. [ 121 ] Y has also been mentioning to the foster mother the violent behaviours that he was victim of and that he witnessed.

[ 122 ] 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. [ 123 ] Since his placement, he has been respecting the rules at home. He still goes to school part time as his behaviour continues to be problematic. [ 124 ] Steps have been taken for the child to receive an attachment evaluation.

A child psychiatrist and the psychologist doing the cognitive evaluation have agreed to do the assessment which is on its way. [ 125 ] 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. [ 126 ] 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. [ 127 ] 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. [ 128 ] Despite their signing the agreement in J’s file, both the mother and Mr. C do not recognize the violence from Mr. C on the children. [ 129 ] The Court learns that the mother is pregnant with their second child to be born in [...] 2021. [ 130 ] Since the children have been placed, the couple is living together again. [ 131 ] Mr. C does not recognise having a violent behaviour, only that he yells sometimes.

The mother claims there is no conjugal violence. [ 132 ] As for the mother and child supervised contacts, they take place at the mother’s home, once a week, all three children together. [ 133 ] The supervision is still necessary as the mother is not always vigilant with the children. [ 134 ] Also, Mr. C has been observed as having outbursts toward the mother. She does not react to his behaviour. [ 135 ] The father had two supervised phone calls with X. The child was requesting a real contact so it was organised for December 2, 2020.

A few days before, the child had changed his mind and said so. [ 136 ] The foster mother says that the child does not ask for his father. [ 137 ] The delegate tried to learn from the child the reason but X would not provide any. [ 138 ] The father was sad and disappointed and fade out of the social follow-up. Analysis [ 139 ] 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. [ 140 ] The level of recognition of Mr.

C’s impulsivity and violent behaviour is insufficient and her personal follow-up has only just started again. [ 141 ] The mother is still considered non-protective of her children by her denial. [ 142 ] She still forms a couple with Mr. C who denies his own problems and has only but very recently started a follow-up. [ 143 ] 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. [ 144 ] 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. [ 145 ] The mother still has to learn to answer X’s and Y’s special needs. [ 146 ] As for the father, his situation remains the same.

He is refusing to adapt to his son’s special needs so another situation of neglect is considered for his lack of parental skills. [ 147 ] This being said, the delegate will have to further investigate why X suddenly refused to meet his father to maintain the emotional bond between them. [ 148 ] The father will also have to collaborate with the Director and be pro-active in requesting contacts with his son. [ 149 ] The grandmother is not a possible resource. The Court shares the Director’s concerns. [ 150 ] Contacts can be organised with her but not at the frequency she is asking.

Furthermore, the Public Health guidelines regarding the pandemic will also have to be respected.

[ 151 ] The maternal aunt must also be disregarded. The minimisation 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. [ 152 ] Contacts with Mr. C are not to be considered before he can truly involve himself in a personal follow-up and recognise his violent behaviour towards the children. [ 153 ] Having read the reports and heard the witness’ 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; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger for the same grounds and for two additional grounds: physical abuse and neglect on the educational level; REVISES the Court order rendered on February 7, 2019 in the present file; 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 supervised contacts between the child and his father, according to the modalities set by the Director of Youth Protection, and as per the calendar of contacts that will be determined by the Director; AUTHORIZES , in the child favour, contacts with the maternal grandmother, according to the frequency and the modalities determined by the Director of Youth Protection and respecting the directives regarding the pandemic; FORBIDS all contacts between Mr.

C and the child; ORDERS that the child receive specific healthcare and health services required by his situation; ORDERS the preparation of an assessment report regarding a possible attachment disorder for the child X under section 86 (2) of the Youth Protection Act; ORDERS that the child attend a school or another place of learning; RECOMMENDS that the mother pursue her steps to address her marital dynamics, as long as deemed necessary by the professional; RECOMMENDS that the father collaborate with the CRDI services; ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in her child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; ORDERS that the child’s parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; 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 Me Sara De Castro Counsel for the DYP M e Caroline Rosa

Counsel for the child M e Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the mother M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: February 25, 2021 Exibits deposed: D-14 Date of written judgment: May 14, 2021