2012 QCCQ 18489, 2012 QCCQ 18489

Protection de la jeunesse — 126162 2012 QCCQ 18489 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-021042-080 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 [...], 2002 - and - B - and - C 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 a motion for revision of an order rendered February 16, 2011, entrusting the child to his 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 a motion for extension followed by a motion for provisional measures asking the Court, amongst other things, to order the mother to collaborate with social services and allow the youth protection delegate access to the child when required, as well as access to information regarding the child. [ 4 ] The merit of the case was set for March 22, 2012.

On that date, DYP asked for a postponement as a new signalement 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 a motion for revision and provisional compulsory foster care of the child. At the hearing of May 1, 2012, the Court rejected the motion for compulsory foster care and ordered that the child be maintained in his mother’s care and that the mother collaborate with DYP and give access to her home and to the child.

The next court hearing was set for June 8, 2012. [ 6 ] An amended motion for revision and extension was filed by DYP on May 24, 2012. The Court heard a number of witnesses on June 8, 2012, and declared still compromised the security and development of the child.

The case was continued to July 26, 2012. [ 7 ] On July 26, 2012, considering the mother’s lack of collaboration with DYP and the fact that she had not presented herself to the random drug tests asked by DYP, the Court ordered that the child be entrusted to his father’s care and that the father's coordinates stay confidential towards the mother, along with other measures, until the hearing of October 10, 2012.

[ 8 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the amended motion 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 child from school; • The mother’s level of collaboration and availability to address issues with the child’s school personnel was inconsistent and deteriorated significantly; • The child’s progress in school deteriorated when he 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; • The mother was offered the services of an educator to assist and support with setting up routines for the child and his siblings 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 mother continues to struggle with meeting her children’s basic physical needs; • For example, until his placement at the end of April 2012, the child's sibling, Y, was frequently not prepared when he arrived at school as he did not have his lunch nor his school bag, Y was also very tired, unkempt and not properly dressed; • Y 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 X have also often arrived at school unprepared; • In addition to this, the mother continues to use physical discipline; • In April 2012, Y reported that the mother uses and threatens to use physical discipline on him and on all his siblings, except for A; Y reported that A gets pinched by the mother; • In April 2012, X 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 child be entrusted to his father’s care for a period of nine months, along with other measures and that a social follow-up be provided to the child and his family for a period of nine months. [ 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 that the child 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 X and all the children want to return to her care. Furthermore, that she receives support from her spouse, Mr. D, with whom she started cohabitating in August 2012, to look after the children. [ 12 ] The father admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and states that he agrees for X to be maintained in his care. Mr.

C says that X's academic performance has improved and that there is no absenteeism. Furthermore, the father says that he agrees to collaborate with DYP and for X to continue to have contacts with his mother. [ 13 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. Me Sepinwall considers that the mother is not in a position to answer all of the child’s needs and has not collaborated adequately with DYP.

Me Sepinwall informs the Court that X wishes to be entrusted to his mother’s care. [ 14 ] The evidence reveals that when the child was in his mother’s care, he was regularly absent or late for school. An educational assessment was completed for X as he was struggling academically. [ 15 ] In early July 2012, X was attending Town B Boys and Girls Club day camp. However, it was reported that X’s behaviour was inappropriate as he was fighting and running out of the building. He was therefore suspended indefinitely from the day camp.

Physical abuse [ 16 ] On June 8, 2012, X’s brother, Y, 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. [ 17 ] Y explained that his mother hits him with a belt or with her hands. That she hits him on his hands and his back. Y also explained that he was hit with a spatula and that he saw X being hit with this instrument. [ 18 ] Y 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 get 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 E and A. [ 19 ] Y 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 “D” is present. [ 20 ] Y 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. [ 21 ] In her testimony, the mother admitted hitting Y 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. [ 22 ] Y 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. [ 23 ] On April 26, 2012, Ms. [Social Worker 1], youth worker, met with X for a face to face unannounced interview at his school. X 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] X 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” X 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. [ 24 ] The Court finds from the evidence that the child was victim of physical abuse by his mother.

Conclusion [ 25 ] 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. [ 26 ] At the last Court hearing, the mother had her spouse, D, testify to confirm that he helps her with the children. He informed the Court that has been living with the mother for several months, including at her apartment in Town C.

The Immigration status of Mr. D in Canada was not clear and he currently does not work. [ 27 ] This testimony contradicted the mother's who has stated that Mr. D had only been living with her since August 2012. Furthermore, Y confirmed in his testimony that Mr. D, that the children call “D”, smokes weed with his mother. [ 28 ] The evidence demonstrates that X has made gains since he was entrusted to his father’s care. He is attending grade four and an individualized education plan has been put into place at the school.

The father has implemented a homework routine in the home and is organizing informal supports to help X with his homework. The father has expressed his willingness to continue to care for X, although his financial situation is difficult. [ 29 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his father’s care for a period of nine months.

The mother has demonstrated inappropriate physical discipline towards her son and there are long standing and chronic issues around neglect and the supervision of her children. [ 30 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 32 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X, for the motives identified in the previous orders and declares compromised the security and development of the child under

section 38 e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to the care of his father for a period of nine months and ORDERS that the father’s coordinates stay confidential towards the mother; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between X and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after discussion with the parents; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his situation and ORDERS that the recommendations of the educational assessment be followed; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS the father to ask the school to be provided with a copy of the assessment;

[ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the child’s family allowance be transferred to the father; [ 38 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP, to meet with the youth workers as requested and to advise them of any change of address or telephone number within 24 hours; [ 39 ] 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; [ 40 ] 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; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all mood altering substances unless prescribed by her doctor; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling available through her local CLSC; [ 43 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all forms of violence, verbal or physical, including threats of physical harm during the contacts with the child; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to have access to the child at the home of the father or the mother and at school; [ 45 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to make unannounced home visits at the mother’s home; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that DYP meet with Mr.

D and RECOMMENDS that Mr.

D collaborate with DYP; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with all of the service providers working with the family; [ 48 ] 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 A; [ 49 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of nine months; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] 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 child Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: March 22, May 1, June 8, July 26 and October 10, 2012