2019 QCCQ 14211, 2019 QCCQ 14211

Protection de la jeunesse — 194405 2019 QCCQ 14211 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-034422-188 DATE : June 20, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2018 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 91 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on June 20, 2019. [ 2 ] On November 9th, 2018, the Tribunal declared that the child’s security or development was endangered according to art. 38 b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act .

In order to have a better understanding of the situation, the Tribunal ordered that the parents participate in a parenting capacity assessment. [ 3 ] On March 26, 2019, the Tribunal postponed the hearing as the Addendum and the parental capacity assessment had not been translated for the father.

Contacts between the parents and the child were suspended until the parents met with the Youth Protection worker on three consecutive occasions (two individual meetings and one couple meeting). [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be placed in a foster family and that diverse support measures be ordered until September 4, 2019. [ 5 ] At the June 20, 2019 hearing, the parents were absent. [ 6 ] The child’s attorney agreed with the Director’s recommendations. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 8 ] Since March 16, 2017 the situation of the child’s half-sibling, Y, has been followed by the Director and the Court of Quebec, Youth Division. His security or development were declared compromised as he was exposed to incidents of conjugal violence and as his parents’ drug consumption created a serious risk of neglect. [ 9 ] Since August 15, 2017, the child’s half-sibling has been entrusted to his paternal grandmother’s care. On December 12, 2018,

the Tribunal maintained the child in his paternal grandmother’s foster home until his age of majority. [ 10 ] Since then, the mother has not taken steps to address her drug addiction. She has not collaborated with the Director. She has a long standing history of drug use. [ 11 ] The mother consumed marijuana and cocaine during her pregnancy with the child. She did not fully complete her prenatal care. Cocaine and marijuana were detected in the mother at the time of the child’s birth.

She was not allowed to breast-feed. [ 12 ] From 2014 to 2018, the father sold and used drugs. [ 13 ] During the Director’s evaluation, the parents reported that they had stopped their drug consumption in August 2018, a few days before the child’s birth. [ 14 ] The parents are minimizing the effect of their drug consumption on their ability to respond to the child’s needs. [ 15 ] Upon birth, the child had to remain hospitalized for several medical issues. She tested positive for cocaine at birth.

The child did not present with signs of withdrawal, but she is particularly vulnerable. [ 16 ] On September 4, 2018, the child integrated the foster family of Ms. C. [ 17 ] On September 13, 2018, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in a confidential foster family. The child is now developing well and is meeting her developmental milestones. [ 18 ] On September 18, 2018, the parents underwent a random substance test. The results were negative. [ 19 ] On September 25, 2018, the mother started attending an Out-Patient Recovery Management Program from [Pavilion A].

Her attendance is uneven. [ 20 ] Around October 2018, the visits between the child and the parents became more irregular. It has been difficult for the Youth Protection worker to reach the parents. [ 21 ] On October 15, 2018, the parents were requested to undertake another random test. The parents failed to present themselves to the laboratory. They mentioned not receiving the voice message in time. [ 22 ] On October 16, 2018, during a meeting with the Youth Protection worker, the parents acknowledged consuming alcohol together.

The father shared his concerns around the mother leaving the home for several days and returning with an important amount of money. He fears that the mother would return to a life of prostitution and drugs. The parents’ financial situation remains fragile. [ 23 ] On November 22, 2018, during a visit between the parents and the child, the mother presented as if she had taken drugs.

Confronted by the Youth Protection worker, the mother denied taking any drugs, but the father confirmed seeing the mother taking drugs that morning. [ 24 ] On December 3, 2018 and January 2, 2019, the mother did not submit herself to requested random drug tests. [ 25 ] The parents canceled numerous meetings with the Youth Protection worker. [ 26 ] From January to March 2019, the parents took

part in a parental capacity assessment. [ 27 ] The psychologist noted the following: […] Mrs. A does not seem to perceive realistically the different stages of child development, and how parental interventions are usually adapted with these different stages. […] Mrs. A manifests wishful thinking when it comes to child rearing, and seems to perceive parenting as relatively easy. […] […] […] Mr. B underlined that he does not want to confront Mrs. A about her drug use and possible prostituting activities, by fear of ending their relationship. […] […] […] Mr.

B mentioned, when exiting the session, that he believed Mrs. A would have been under the influence of cocaine during today’s assessment session. […] […] Mrs. A’s life history may certainly have influenced negatively many aspects of her personal and emotional development, unfortunately leading her, on multiple occasions, to poor decision-making. […] Mrs. A often seems elusive as to her whereabouts, even so with her boyfriend, Mr. B.

She is also elusive when answering questions, whether in the context of the expertise or when questioned by [Center A]. […] [1] [ 28 ] The psychologist concludes stating the following: We believe that, in order for Mrs. A and Mr. B to parent X in the best, efficient way, both parents imperatively need to refrain from any

drug use and implication with organized crime, as well as prostitution. Not only can such behaviors endanger the child, but they also enhance the risk of the child developing substance abuse disorder, and adopting criminal behaviors later on in life […] Mrs. A will also need to continue her efforts in terms of emotion regulation. Moreover, both parents should closely be implicated in developing their parenting skills.

They should also gain better knowledge of the different steps of child development […] and of the demands, in terms of child rearing, that are specific to each step of child development. [2] [ 29 ] Following the March 26, 2019 Court hearing, the father continued to report concerns regarding the mother’s lifestyle. The mother has discontinued her follow up with [Pavilion A]. [ 30 ] On May 17, 2019, the child was transferred to a long term foster family, Mr. C and Mrs. D. She adapted well to this new environment. Mrs. D testified to the effect that the child is a happy and easy baby.

She recognizes members of the foster family. The foster parents are committed to caring for the child for as long as necessary. [ 31 ] On May 24, 2019, the mother contacted the Youth Protection worker for the first time since the last Court hearing. [ 32 ] On May 27, 2019, the Youth Protection worker was able to meet with both parents. The mother disclosed that she had been using cocaine in the past and that she was now sober for the past week.

She also reported that she would start employment at a Tim Hortons. [ 33 ] Following this meeting, the parents did not present themselves to the follow-up appointment with the Youth Protection worker. [ 34 ] The risk factors present within the family have yet to be addressed. The parents’ motivation remains minimal. At the end of the present period, as the child’s maximum duration of placement will have been reached, a permanent plan will have to be presented to the Tribunal.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (section 38 b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to foster care; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection intend to maintain the child in the foster family of Mrs. D and Mr.

C; [ 39 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her parents be suspended, until they meet with the caseworker for five consecutive meetings; once this condition is fulfilled, ORDERS that the frequency and modalities contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in treatment services for her substance abuse and mental health, and report her progress to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents follow the recommendations of the parental capacity assessment by Dr.

Françoise Maheu dated March 18, 2019; [ 42 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain pertinent information with professionals working with the family; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE until September 4, 2019; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on June 28, 2019 /cd Mtre Dominique Douglas Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Audrey Sheitoyan Counsel for the child Mtre Josselin Breton Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 20, 2019