2015 QCCQ 19527, 2015 QCCQ 19527

Protection de la jeunesse — 154738 2015 QCCQ 19527 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 29416-153 Date: October 19, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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.). [ 1 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 19, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a two year-old child, based on the neglect and psychological ill-treatment to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] A motion was also filed regarding the child’s older sister whose situation is the subject of a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated February 3, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, the child is the subject of an agreement on voluntary measures as it appears more fully from the agreement on voluntary measures filed herein as Exhibit D-1; 3.2. there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs with respect to food, clothing, hygiene or lodging, taking into account their resources, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents present some intellectual limitations;

b) the parents experience marital and financial difficulties;

c) the parents have yet to decide whether they will remain together or separate;

d) the home is very disorganized and significant improvements in the upkeep of the home are required;

e) concerns remain around parent’s ability to adequately supervise and stimulate the children and to anticipate potential safety issues;

f) the parents continue to require prompting and support to reach out to professionals to work on improving their parental ability; 3.3. the father does not agree with the continued involvement of the Director of Youth Protection (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

[ 5 ] In light of the foregoing and considering significant changes in the family’s situation since the date of the motion, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to his paternal grandmother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The mother, assisted by Me Morin, admitted most of the alleged facts, consented to the proposed measures and conveyed her willingness to collaborate fully. [ 7 ] The father, assisted by Me Denault, admitted all the alleged facts but contested the proposed measures, suggesting that the child be entrusted to him on the condition that he reside with his mother. [ 8 ] Me Fafard, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but generally approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, leaving it to the Court’s discretion to entrust the child to the paternal grandmother or to the father, on the condition that he reside with her. [ 9 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-6 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Agreement on voluntary measures dated May 26, 2014; D-3: Court report, prepared by [social worker 2], dated January 20, 2015; D-4: Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated May 13, 2015; D-5: Parental Capacity Evaluation, prepared by [social worker 3], dated August 9, 2015 (filed under

Article 294.1 C.p.c.); D-6: Second Addendum, prepared by [social worker 1], dated October 9, 2015. [ 10 ] The father filed Exhibit P-1: P-1: Letter concerning the father, prepared by Abe Worenklein, Clinical Psychologist, dated October 14, 2015. [ 11 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 12 ] Moreover, significant changes have occurred since the date of the motion. The parents, who struggled with serious marital problems, have decided to definitively end their relationship. The mother resides with her parents and the father resides with the children and his mother.

The children now spend every other weekend with their mother in the maternal grandparents’ home. [ 13 ] Unfortunately, tension between the parents remains extremely high, as described at length in the second addendum to the Court report [2] and they could greatly benefit from co-parenting and conflict resolution classes. [ 14 ] Efforts were made by the parents to work with a mediator but it appears that the mother needs specialized assistance to better understand the process and participate more effectively. [ 15 ] Both parents will need to continue their efforts to understand one another and to find effective means of communicating regarding the children. [ 16 ] The mother deeply resents the father for not having shared child-rearing responsibilities with her during the marriage and the father blames the mother for the children’s delays which he attributes to a lack of adequate stimulation on her part. [ 17 ] The parents are strongly encouraged to reassess their perspective, more particularly in light of the recommendations in the parental capacity assessment quoted below. [ 18 ] Each parent is encouraged to allow the child to benefit as fully as possible from his relationship with the other parent. [ 19 ] In the meantime, the mother’s inability to care for the children independently is admitted and the only question that remains is whether the child should be entrusted to his father or to his paternal grandmother with whom the father resides. [ 20 ] The evidence establishes that the father has made significant changes to his routine and work

schedule to play a very active role in co-parenting his children with his mother. [ 21 ] Given the changes he has made, the active part he is playing in fulfilling his children’s needs and given that he is primarily responsible for meeting his children’s needs, but given that he needs his mother’s assistance and cannot assume their care independently, the Court concludes that the child should be entrusted to the care of his father on the condition that he reside with his own mother. [ 22 ] Moreover, despite her challenges, the mother’s attachment to her children is evident and she will need help and encouragement not only to maintain a strong bond with them but to play as active and independent a role as possible in their lives. [ 23 ] As indicated in her parental capacity assessment: The results of the current assessment are consistent with a diagnosis of an intellectual disability.

Prior cognitive testing in 2013 (WAIS- IV), showed comparable results. Ms. A presents with significant deficits in “intellectual functions that involve reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, learning from instruction and experience, and practical understanding” (DSM-V (pg.37). […]

With respect to the referral question, in view of Ms. A’ own vulnerabilities, the young age of her children, and their differing developmental needs, she is considered to be in need of guidance in the presence of her children, with the goal of transitioning to becoming more independent. Ms. A has a desire to parent [his sister] and X. She appears to care deeply for her children and a mutual attachment was observed. Ms.

A’ poor response to intervention efforts may reflect her need for more specialized services, geared towards individuals with intellectual disabilities and associated deficits in adaptive functioning. [3] [ 24 ] The following recommendations were made to assist the mother and the family is strongly encouraged to keep them in mind: • Referral to Miriam Home for comprehensive services • Application for a disability allowance • Individual counselling with a focus on coping skills, self-esteem, and life skills • Provide Ms.

A with information regarding Y’s delays and strategies to promote the development of her speech and language skills • Offer family members factual information about intellectual disabilities and the associated impact on adaptive functioning • Assist family members to move from blame to conflict resolution with the goal of establishing a supportive family network in the best interests of the children • On-going involvement of youth protection [4] . [ 25 ] In addition, as the mother may become overwhelmed caring for both her children at once, time should be set aside for each with their mother individually. [ 26 ] As for the child, since moving into his paternal grandmother’s home, he appears to be making progress: Since the children have been with Ms.

C they seem to be happy, less anxious and calm. […] Ms. C was an educator in a daycare for 15 years. She reported to the undersigned that she reads to the children and talks to them and stimulates them all the time. The children follow a routine now and they respond to the structure that has been provided. [5] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 38 b) 1) and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father on the condition that he reside with the child’s paternal grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that such contacts be encouraged, as much as possible; [ 32 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts between the mother and her child will occur minimally every other weekend, between Friday and Sunday, at the maternal grandparents’ home; [ 33 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that an additional contact every other week with the child, but without his sibling, will be arranged and that the mother will be able to have minimally bi-weekly telephone contacts with the child; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from any healthcare services that may be required by his situation; [ 35 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the recommendations in the Parental Capacity Evaluation [6] be followed, more particularly that the mother benefit from services from Miriam Home or comparable services that may be made available to her; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to seek services from the Jewish General Hospital; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother benefit from individual counselling; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that each family member be provided with factual information about intellectual disabilities and the associated impact on adaptive functioning; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother benefit from services to improve her parenting skills, more particularly that she participate in any programs that may be offered, as soon as possible, such as “Terrific Toddlers”; [ 40 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in co-parenting conflict, resolution and mediation services and that accommodations be made so that the mother may be assisted and accompanied by a person from Miriam Home or otherwise qualified who can help her with the process where needed; [ 41 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his

family; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Isabelle F. Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Alec Fafard Attorney for the child Me Marc Morin Attorney for the mother Me Louise Denault Attorney for the father TD/vl