2017 QCCQ 19222, 2017 QCCQ 19222

Protection de la jeunesse — 179828 2017 QCCQ 19222 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000663-153 DATE: November 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at […] Applicant -and- X, domiciled and residing at […] Child -and- MRS.

B, domiciled and residing at […] Mother -and- MR. C domiciled and residing at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on October 13, 2016, concerning X, born on […], 2014. On that date, Judge Grimard implemented a draft agreement ordering that the child remain with his parents as well as various measures of assistance for a period of six months. [ 2 ] Both parents admit that the security and development of the child are still endangered.

The Director is asking that the child be entrusted to a foster family for 10 months and seeking different measures of assistance for a period of 16 months. [ 3 ] The parents agree with most of the recommended measures, but disagree that the child needs to be entrusted to a foster family, arguing that he should be maintained in their care. Consequently, they propose additional measures to put an end to the situation which endangers their son’s security and development. [ 4 ] X has three half-brothers, Y (8 years old), Z (7 years old) and A (6 years old), born from a previous union of the mother with Mr. D.

X’s brothers have always been in the care of their mother, except for short periods during which they were entrusted to their grandmother. [ 5 ] To have an accurate understanding of the situation of these young boys, a

summary of the earlier decisions rendered in their files is appropriate. [ 6 ] Before X was born, in June 2014, Judge McKenna declared the security and development of his brothers endangered pursuant to

section 38 (

c) of the Youth Protection Act for psychological ill-treatment. [ 7 ] In July 2013, the mother started a relationship with Mr. C, X’s father. A violent event occurred in April 2014 between the mother and her spouse resulting in his detention for a week. The mother admitted to several incidents of domestic violence involving Mr. C, which mostly were shouting and verbal abuse, but did, on some occasions, include physical violence towards her. [ 8 ] It is relevant to quote Judge McKenna’s findings in the decision concerning Y, Z and A:

[19] As for the allegations of psychological ill-treatment, the Court is of the opinion that the children have been evolving in a family environment where verbal and physical violence have been prevalent for too long. The mother ended one relationship in which violence was well rooted only to engage in another. […] In this sense, the mother has yet to show she is able to truly invest in services aimed at putting an end to the cycle of violence. […] [21] The mother states she now realizes the seriousness of the situation and acknowledges that Mr.

C must get proper counselling before she renews her relationship with him. She ascertains being ready to put her children first. [22] In support of her recommendation, the applicant expresses concerns about the mother’s capacity and willingness to set clear limits to Mr. C regarding verbal and physical violence. The information gathered from the first line worker is to the effect that in the past, the mother failed to follow through with domestic violence awareness workshops. […] [24] The mother now says that she will not renew her relationship with Mr. C until he gets necessary counselling.

She expresses the wish to also get counselling as well as to undergo a medical assessment regarding possible mood swings. [25] The mother must, for the sake of her children, develop a better understanding of her children’s feelings surrounding the issue of domestic violence. Exposure to such violence by children is detrimental to their development because there is a risk, among others, that they model aggressive behaviour in their relationships with others. […] [ 9 ] The Court entrusted the child’s siblings to their mother and prohibited that they be in contact with Mr.

C. [ 10 ] The mother gave birth to X in December 2014. On March 4, 2015, the Court was seized with an application to declare the security and development of X endangered, and an application to review and extend the June 2014 order for his brothers. Previously, on February 11, 2015, provisional measures were ordered entrusting the boys to their maternal grandmother until the March hearing. [ 11 ] The evidence showed that the mother had renewed her relationship with Mr. C.

She had not participated in the domestic violence awareness workshop, nor did she undergo the medical assessment for her mood swings. [ 12 ] Although there were suspicions that Mr. C was in the presence of X’s brothers, therefore in breach of the Court order, the mother denied it. On February 10, Mr. C was found hiding in a concealed locker in the basement of the mother’s house, confirming the applicant’s suspicions.

A camera had been installed to see who was knocking at the front door from inside the residence. [ 13 ] Judge Bélanger concluded that the mother showed great difficulty in setting limits with her spouse and, although saying that she wished to get help, did not take the necessary steps to do so. The children, she said, were not safe under the mother’s care.

At that time, the couple was involved in a program concerning domestic violence, as the mother still needed to get some tools and support, and the father needed to resolve his anger management problems. [ 14 ] Judge Bélanger declared X’s security and development endangered, and entrusted the four boys to their maternal grandmother for a period of 6 months, with a progressive reintegration with the mother complemented by various measures for a 12-month period. [ 15 ] The mother agreed to participate in a medical assessment concerning her mood swings and anger management difficulties, to continue a follow-up if necessary, and to address her self-esteem, parenting capabilities and domestic violence issues. [ 16 ] The father agreed to a follow-up concerning anger management as long as deemed necessary by the worker. [ 17 ] In March 2016, Judge Beauchemin implemented a draft agreement in which X and his brothers remained with the couple for a period of six months. [ 18 ] Again, the parents agreed that they needed help in order to avoid violent incidents between them.

They were not totally involved in their therapy, missing more than half of the meetings. Various assistance measures were once more ordered, with the main goals being to prevent domestic violence in the household and to support the mother in her parenting skills. [ 19 ] In October 2016, Judge Grimard implemented a new draft agreement entrusting the boys to the couple for a period of six months. [ 20 ] The parents admitted that verbal violence still occurred in the presence of the children. On August 16, 2016, the couple had a violent dispute forcing two of the children to take refuge at their grandparent’s home.

At some point, the children expressed that they wanted to “kill C.” [ 21 ] Continuing with the same momentum, the parents did not attend their marital therapy on a regular basis. The father accepted to undergo a therapy for domestic violence. The same measures as those set forth in March 2016 were ordered. [ 22 ] The present application was filed in April 2017, but for various reasons, the audition was postponed many times. The hearing proceeded on September 29, 2017. [ 23 ] It is fair to say that the situation is at a standstill since June 2014.

The main problem throughout the years has been and still is the violence between the parents. The situation persisted because of the lack of collaboration and transparency of the couple towards the Youth Protection workers and with the professionals providing them with services and follow-ups. [ 24 ] To explain their lack of involvement in the different measures ordered, the parents underline the fact that they did not get along with their appointed worker, Mrs. [social worker 1]. According to the mother, she was too rigid and did not seem open to their difficulties.

While it does happen that “the glue doesn’t stick” between the worker and the parents, the Court noticed that they had three prior workers before the latest modification that occurred last April when Mrs. [social worker 2] replaced Mrs. [social worker1].

Mrs. [social worker 2] became the fifth social worker involved with the family. It is difficult, in these circumstances, to blame the stagnation of their situation on that factor only, since Mrs. [social worker1] worked with them for only six months. Nevertheless, the succession of workers is not an ideal situation, as it doesn’t favour the construction of a positive bond, trust and consistency within the worker-parent relationship. [ 25 ] The parents seem to get along well with Mrs. [social worker 2].

Although a harmonious client-worker relationship is very positive and should benefit the couple and the children, the Court needs to stress out the importance of seeing the larger goal at hand: The parents have to take action to put an end to the situation which endangers the security and development of the children. They must invest themselves truly in working on their communications skills and anger management notwithstanding the relationship with their worker.

They must also put aside their fear and reluctance to collaborate, and be open and honest about the situation in their household in order to benefit from the services offered by the Youth Protection workers. [ 26 ] X is a two-year-old healthy boy. He stays at home with his parents every day as they want to keep him with them instead of bringing him to day care. He is developing well.

He has a good bond with both parents and is at ease to go to either of them for comfort and to fulfill his needs. [ 27 ] The evidence shows that the mother was struggling with the morning routine, as she sometimes did not get up, and, as a result, the older boys had to prepare themselves alone on school mornings. The mother has since recognized this difficulty.

A family to family committee was held in April 2017 and solutions were put in place to assist the mother and her spouse in getting X’s brothers ready for school. [ 28 ] In June 2017, a school trip was cancelled for Y, the older brother, by his teacher because of his unacceptable behaviour in class. He became very upset and scared. He repeatedly mentioned that he did not want to go home because his mother would beat him.

Z and A were also met that day and both related similar facts concerning frequent slaps on the head from their mother. [ 29 ] Following this incident, X’s brothers became afraid to speak to the youth workers. They sometimes covered their mouths quickly when realizing they were opening up. The worker noticed a change in their way of interacting with her as they seemed uncomfortable to talk with her. These observations are cause for concern: are they pressured not to communicate information about the life at home?

If so, it would be very detrimental for the children as they need to be allowed to create a positive bond with their worker, and feel free to communicate with her at all time to ensure their protection. [ 30 ] The summer was a difficult time for the mother, as she terminated a pregnancy. She was really tired for a while, and again, she had a hard time getting up for the boys and needed to sleep during the day. She was overwhelmed and exhausted by her situation and the incumbent responsibilities.

The older boys had to manage on their own, in front of the television, while the adults slept. [ 31 ] She admits that she yells at the children to discipline them. She also admits giving a slight slap on the back of Y’s head following an incident where he almost hit Ain the eye with a knife while she was outside with X. [ 32 ] The parents attended sessions to address their relationship issues of verbal and physical violence. According to the mother, there is no more physical violence between them, but verbal aggressions are still present.

The mother acknowledges that the children, who witness this verbal violence, are affected by it. The First Line Services worker will not only work with the couple, but also with the children on that issue. [ 33 ] The father started an anger management follow-up with the First Line Services in March 2017, and is still meeting with the social service worker. His attendance record is not perfect, but improved this summer.

He also agreed to participate in a father’s group, but did not yet make contact with the person in charge. [ 34 ] The mother set up a follow-up to address her anger management issues with the First Line Services. She wishes to talk about anger management, discipline and family structure in the hope of developing new tools and techniques that will improve the family dynamic.

She also asked for an anger management assessment for her three older sons. [ 35 ] The evidence is preponderant that the security and development of the child are still endangered for psychological ill-treatment, serious risk of neglect, and serious risks of bodily harm. [ 36 ] The words spoken by Judge McKenna in June 2014 still apply today, given that the situation has not evolved much. Family violence is present in the household, and even if there are no more physical encounters, the verbal violence is as detrimental for the children as any other form of violence.

Children who are exposed to violence at home may have learning difficulties, limited social skills, exhibit violent, risky or delinquent behaviour, or suffer from depression or severe anxiety. Young children are particularly vulnerable and face challenges and risks that can last throughout their lives. It is essential that the parents understand the consequences of family violence on the children. [ 37 ] We are now at a crossroad. The Director recommended that the children be entrusted to a foster family.

Although the parents had many opportunities to make changes, there is no real progress since the child’s birth. The Court considers the recent involvement of the parents, the positive relationship with their newly appointed worker and the fact that they are taking action and meeting the different professionals in deciding the appropriate measures to protect the child. A plan has been put and is being followed. For these reasons, the child will remain with his parents. [ 38 ] This being said, serious change must be observed in the next months.

The children need a safe and stable home environment to favour their physical, emotional and social development. They also need a healthy lifestyle, a sense of routine and normalcy, with caregivers that take charge of all their needs. [ 39 ] The parents will need to fully collaborate, be assiduous in all their follow-ups, and be transparent about their difficulties and honest with the worker. The Director of Youth Protection has been present in this family for many years, but the forward movement is just starting. They must take action and be consistent in their efforts.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 40 ] GRANTS the application to review and extend a decision; [ 41 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X are still endangered because he is in a situation in which there is a serious risk that his parents are not providing for his basic needs, because he is victim of psychological ill-treatment and because he is in a situation in which he run’s a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his family; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his parents for a period of 16 months; [ 44 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent and ORDERS that she participates in a couples counselling follow-up and an anger management follow-up, as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 45 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent and ORDERS that he participates in a couples counselling follow-up, an anger management follow-up and a Father’s Group as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 46 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parent’s consent, and ORDERS the exchange of information between all the professionals and the Director of Youth Protection implicated in the family’s life concerning assiduity and collaboration; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate actively and openly with the Director of Youth Protection and report or meet with the worker as often as required; [ 48 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits at the parent’s residence by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 49 ] ORDERS that any police officer collaborate in the execution of the present order if required; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the child M e Catherine Dionne-Marcotte André Levasseur, Avocat Lawyer for the mother M e Jean-François Lacasse Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 29, 2017