2017 QCCQ 18557, 2017 QCCQ 18557

Protection de la jeunesse — 178945 2017 QCCQ 18557 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-031795-164 DATE: November 14, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on: [...], 2016 The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection ( the Director) seized the Court with an Application under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the child be declared in danger. [ 2 ] In its motion dated October 27, 2016, the Director alleges the following: 3.1. from April 12, 2016 until December 12, 2016, the child was subject of a voluntary measures agreement due to issues of neglect, as it appears more fully from the said document; 3.2. since in or around April 2016, the family has received intensive support services from the Director consisting of weekly visits by the delegate as well as visits approximately three (3) times per week from the educator; 3.3. despite intensive services, serious concerns remain with regards to the child’s situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the cleanliness, hygiene and care of the child has been neglectful;

b) the mother has not always ensured the appropriate supervision and routine for the child;

c) the mother has difficulty responding to the child’s cues;

d) concerns exist with regards to the child’s attachment to the mother;

e) concerns exist with regards to the lack of stimulation the child receives;

f) the mother resides with the child in the maternal grandmother’s home where there are also several pets;

g) concerns exist with regards to the cleanliness of the home;

h) the parents and the maternal grandmother have had difficulties understanding the various concerns discussed with them related to neglect; 3.4. serious concerns exist with regards to the mother’s parental capacity given the limited gains seen despite intensive interventions; 3.5. the father has a longstanding history of alcohol abuse that he admits but for which he does not wish to receive treatment; 3.6. given the young age of the child, and the multitude of issues of neglect remaining despite intensive intervention by the Director of Youth Protection, it is clear that the parents are not in a position to meet all of the child’s needs; 3.7. the maternal grandmother has made threats to kidnap the child should she be placed in a foster home; [ 3 ] Based on the above, the Director is recommending that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of nine months. [ 4 ] The child has always remained in the mother’s care however, as explained later, the evidence presented by the Director establishes the need for the child to be placed outside the home. [ 5 ] Today, the mother agrees with the child’s placement provided the child is entrusted to long-time friends of the maternal grandmother, Ms.

C and Mr. D. The Director maintains its request for placement in a foster family, having identified a couple able to keep the child as long as needed. The child’s attorney agrees with the mother’s request that the child be entrusted to the C-D family. [ 6 ] The father has been absent from all court hearings and is absent again today. He has not been involved with the child in over one year; he last saw her in June 2016. He went to [province A] from around August to November 2016. He has spent some time with his mother and was also incarcerated.

He is aware that the Director is involved with his daughter and that placement is being requested. He had committed to meet the worker and even come to Court in February 2017 but did not do so. His current whereabouts are unknown. The Court has always therefore proceeded in his absence, as more explicitly explained in the minutes of the various hearings. [ 7 ] Thus, today, the main issue is whether the child should be entrusted to a regular foster family or to the persons proposed by the mother.

Hearing [ 8 ] It must be stated that completing this hearing took over one year. [ 9 ] The Director initially seized the Court on an emergency basis in October 2016 requesting that the child be provisionally entrusted to a foster family but the motion was denied.

The child was maintained with her mother with various supports and the main hearing was scheduled before the undersigned in November 2016. [ 10 ] Postponements took place, first in November 2016 to allow the mother to undergo a parental capacity assessment and again in February 2017 because the docket was full and did not allow for a lengthy contested case. The hearing finally took place on June 6 and 15, 2017. [ 11 ] On the latter date, the Court took the matter under advisement and maintained status quo (child with mother).

In addition, based on information provided by the Director to the effect that the C-D home had not been approved as a foster home for the child, the Court ordered the filing of the assessment report explaining the reasons thereof. [ 12 ] Shortly afterwards, the case was re-opened because the Court was informed that the said assessment was in fact not complete and needed to be completed. Then, later, the mother transmitted new concerns regarding Mr. D that needed to be processed before a decision would be made regarding the home.

In the end, the C-D home was indeed approved as a “proximity foster family” for the child, that is, a home that meets the requirements to care for the child appropriately. Issues [ 13 ] Which brings us back to the two following questions: 1- What factors lead the Court to conclude that the child’s placement is required? 2- Should the child be entrusted to a “foster family” or to the C-D home? Evidence

[ 14 ] The Court heard several witnesses and received various reports regarding the mother’s basic parental capacities. [ 15 ] The Court principally retained from this evidence that the parents had been in a relationship for about five years but split up even prior to the child’s conception. The father was nonetheless present in the child’s life as of the time of her birth but the child was mainly in the mother’s care. [ 16 ] The child was signaled to the Director due to issues of parental negligence when she was only a few months old.

Concerns noted at the time, including from a CLSC nurse, were: lack of stimulation; hygiene problems (home and child); lack of proper care (dirty bottle; mother not picking up on child’s cues) and refusal to acknowledge problems and receive help. There were also several concerns regarding both parents.

The father had a very unstable past and had problems with alcohol up until a recent past whereas the mother presented with panic attacks and issues of anger, depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. [ 17 ] The Director therefore concluded that indeed, the child was at risk and voluntary measures were signed to cover the period from April to December 2016 during which time the child would be maintained at home with various support measures. [ 18 ] During the course of the voluntary measures, the situation did not improve. The child remained with the mother who moved in with her own mother in July 2016.

As mentioned earlier, the father moved out to [province A] in August 2016. Various supports were provided to the mother, including the services of the “Family Preservation Program”. However, the same types of issues as those initially identified continued: sanitation, stimulation, hygiene, routine, supervision, lack of weight gain. The mother continued to regularly have suicidal thoughts. [ 19 ] At the end of the voluntary measures, as the situation remained concerning, the Director seized the Court of the present motion.

As mentioned above, the Director initially sought to have the child entrusted to a foster family but this request was denied. The child has thus remained entrusted to the mother with various court-ordered support measures. [ 20 ] The mother underwent an eight-hour parental capacity assessment in November 2016 with a psychologist, Dr. Catherine Cloutier. The psychologist’s observations are consistent with those of other professionals who had worked with the mother over time.

Her evaluation of the mother includes the following conclusions: extremely low cognitive functioning; anxiety; feelings of persecution; lack of insight; denial of all difficulties; likely personality disorder. She described the mother-child interaction and relationship as being “distant” and felt that the mother did not pick-up on the child’s cues. She saw clear signs of attachment problems. Dr. Cloutier concluded that the mother is not able to meet the child’s basic needs and was categorical that the mother would be unable to parent the child alone.

She also recommended that the mother undergo a psychiatric evaluation. [ 21 ] Into the current calendar year, the youth protection worker continued to observe that the mother rarely held the child and did not provide proper supervision and stimulation. Despite similar concerns expressed by various professionals involved with her, the mother did not see what she could do to improve her parenting. [ 22 ] In May 2017, approximately one week after having commenced medication for her anxiety, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment.

The psychiatrist found the mother to be of average intelligence even though she could not do a simple subtraction (20 minus 3). He also found that she displayed insight into her situation and adequate judgement. Although he concluded that the mother had a longstanding personality disorder, he felt that it was in a quiescent state and that there were no active psychiatric symptoms that could interfere with her parenting capacity. [ 23 ] It should be stated that Dr.

Cloutier, the psychologist who evaluated the mother’s parental capacity in November 2016, testified in June 2017 with the benefit of having read the psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Cloutier raised a certain number of discrepancies in what the mother told her and what she told the psychiatrist. She also remained adamant that the results of the psychiatric report in no way change her opinion that the mother does not have the necessary parental skills to care for the child on her own. [ 24 ] An educator, Ms. Jessica Ford, was involved with the mother for one year, from June 2016 to June 2017.

She met the mother about twice per week for a good hour in order to improve the mother’s parenting skills around things like attachment, stimulation, child- care and routine. At the same time, other services were offered or provided to the mother: CLSC nurse; parenting program, etc. Ms. Ford saw very little improvement in the mother’s parenting. The mother did not recognize problems, would tune-out, not apply what was requested and sometimes not even make herself available for meetings. The mother did not follow through on requests to register the child in daycare. Ms.

Ford’s initial six-month mandate was extended in order to see if the mother’s parenting could improve but it did not. Ms. Ford reported various difficulties, including chronic neglect, lack of stimulation and bonding. For example, the child would be left for long periods to watch television alone in a separate room. At the park, the mother would turn her back to the child and let her play on her own. There was little eye-contact between the mother and the child.

The mother provided little encouragement or positive messages to the child. [ 25 ] Although the mother appeared more focussed during meetings after having begun medication, her parenting did not improve. In the end, Ms. Ford felt that the mother did not improve her parenting skills even though “everything had been tried”. In her view, the mother could not live on her own with the child and placement was required. [ 26 ] It should be stated that Ms. Ford often noted that there were conflicts between the mother and her own mother and brother.

The two were also critical of DYP intervention and did not see any particular problems in terms of the mother’s parenting. This made it all the more difficult to intervene with the mother. [ 27 ] Throughout the months, the mother remained living at home with her mother and brother. There were occasional conflicts between family members, the mother sometimes feeling belittled by her family. At one point, she even considered moving out with the child but in the end agreed to remain, having understood that moving could lead to the child being placed.

Even though the mother’s emotional state was more stable since being medicated, the Director continued to observe various elements of negligence and an increasing lack of collaboration on the mother’s part. [ 28 ] The same youth protection worker, Ms. [Social Worker 1], has been involved since April 2016. At the time of her testimony in

June 2017, she had met the mother about 60 times. Her main focus had been to work intensively with the mother in order to avoid the child going into placement. Her general observation was that the situation had not improved. The mother did not identify difficulties and when told what she should do, did not follow through. Ms. [Social Worker 1] saw the child change over time. Initially, the child would call out to her mother for attention but gradually, as the mother did not respond to her cues, she would no longer do so.

The child stopped going to her mother or raising her arms to be picked-up as though she knew that the mother would not respond to her quest for attention. [ 29 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] also noted periods of serious conflict between the mother and her mother and brother. They would sometimes be very critical of the mother on a personal level. However, they did not see the problems with the mother’s parenting, which only made it more difficult to mobilize the mother to change. [ 30 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1] has had only sporadic contact with the father.

He never visited the child, let alone ask to have her in his care. [ 31 ] During her testimony last June, the mother felt that the child should remain in her care. She did not recognize serious difficulties in her parenting but did state that her medication was helping her be a more responsive parent to her child. [ 32 ] Based on the above, it is clear to the Court that the mother has serious parenting problems for which numerous services were provided. But with little success. The mother is currently not able to meet the child’s needs and there is no reason to believe that the situation will improve.

The Court will therefore declare the child’s security or development compromised due to “neglect of the child’s basic physical needs” and “serious risk of neglect”.

Measures [ 33 ] Given the supports put in place and the lack of real improvement in the situation, the Court must look at substitute care for the child. [ 34 ] During her testimony in June 2017, the mother indicated at that time that she wanted to continue to care for the child but that should placement be required, she preferred the child being entrusted to the C-D family. [ 35 ] The mother has wavered in this regard and went as far as to make allegations against Mr. D that the Director needed to investigate before approving the C-D home as a “proximity foster family” for X.

The mother explained that she had taken too much medication, had a panic attack and made false claims against Mr. D. She subsequently decided that her daughter should be entrusted to this home and has no concerns about the care X would receive from them. She also apologized to Mr. D about her false allegations. [ 36 ] This is not the first conflict between the two families but overall, relations between them are good. As stated earlier, Ms. C is one of the mother’s oldest and best friends and therefore knows the mother and the child well. [ 37 ] The C-D couple were assessed and accepted to foster the child.

Although they are in their 50’s, they are committed to caring for the child as long as need be. They also have seven children between them and have identified one of Mr. D’s daughters as possibly taking over child care later-on if need be: if the child is still with them and if they are no longer able to carry on themselves. Without going into all the details of the assessment, suffice it to say that they appear to have all the personal qualities to adequately care for the child.

They are both professionals who seem to grasp the importance of their offer, are willing to adjust their lives accordingly and understand the fact that the Director would be involved in terms of monitoring the situation and coordinating parental visits.

There are no reasons why the Court would not entrust the child to them. [ 38 ] The Director’s view is that the better plan for the child is to entrust her to a foster family capable of answering all of the child’s needs and where there are no issues like the ones that arise from the option of entrusting the child to the C-D couple: there is no history of conflict, no concern that the mother could make new claims to sabotage the placement and no need to look at a plan B. [ 39 ] Thus, the Court has two options that both have merit. The C-D couple know the mother and the child.

They are clearly committed to caring for the child. They have a proven record in terms of raising all of their children quite well. The couple proposed by the Director would likely be able to keep the child as long as needed without the complications possibly associated with using an older couple who are also family friends. [ 40 ] In order to decide which proposition to endorse, the Court is guided by three main considerations. [ 41 ] First, the mother continues to exercise parental authority over the child.

Parental authority includes the “ rights and duties of custody, supervision and education ”. [ Sec. 599 Civil code of Quebec (C.C.Q.)]. Because the father absent from the child’s life, the mother is the only parent exercising this authority currently. The law is clear that even when the DYP is involved and even if the child was placed, the mother holds on to her parental authority. Indeed,

section 605 C.C.Q. states: “ Whether custody is entrusted to one of the parents or to a third person, and whatever the reasons may be, the father and mother retain the right to supervise the maintenance and education of the children …” As well, the first ‘general principle’ that is contained in the Youth Protection Act reminds us that: “ The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents. ” (sec. 2.2 YPA) Parental authority includes the right to “ delegate the custody, supervision or education of the child ” to another person. (sec. 601 C.C.Q.) [ 42 ] Secondly, the couple proposed by the mother are more than adequate to meet the child’s needs. [ 43 ] Thirdly,

section 89 YPA highlights the importance of ordering a measure that “ obtains the assent ” of the parties, or in this case, a placement that the mother agrees with. [ 44 ] The combination of these considerations leads the Court to endorse the mother’s proposition that the child be entrusted to C-D couple. Indeed, the mother has full parental authority and is proposing a measure that meets the child’s needs. There are no reasons not

to respect the mother’s wishes, particularly since the Court must promote measures that the parties –the mother and the child’s attorney in this case– agree with. [ 45 ] That said, the period of placement the Court will order will be one year rather than the nine months proposed by the Director in order to have a better idea how both the mother and child are doing. However, should the situation allow, the Court will allow the child’s integration with the mother in nine months. [ 46 ] The Director intends to favor mother-child contacts.

Consequently, the mother will be authorized to see her daughter minimally twice per week. [ 47 ] Given that the father is totally uninvolved with his child and has not seen her since June 2016, the Court will suspend his contacts. Allowing them without knowing what his intentions are could be disruptive for the child. Should the father reappear and want to have contact with the child, he can always make such a request to the Court. CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 48 ] GRANTS the Application; [ 49 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X is in danger within the meaning of

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act due to neglect of the child’s basic physical needs and serious risk of neglect by the mother. [ 50 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 51 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms. C and Mr.

D; [ 52 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to reintegrate the child under the mother’s care in (9) months; [ 53 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality (including possible supervision) of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and that those contacts be minimally twice a week; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the contact between X and her father be suspended; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to share/obtain pertinent information with all treating professionals involved with the family; [ 56 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and the family; [ 57 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

Signed on December 4, 2017 M e Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the applicant M e Iza-Li Ouimet Attorney for the child Me Francis Cloutier Attorney for the mother Judgment rendered verbally on November 14, 2017 CL/nl