2015 QCCQ 17398, 2015 QCCQ 17398

Protection de la jeunesse — 159597 2015 QCCQ 17398 JN 0300 COURT OF QUÉBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] No: 525-41-029709-151 DATE: November 25, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES A.

NADEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF THE CIUSSS A, Director and X (born on […], 2014), Child and A, Mother and B, Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR PROTECTION (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 of his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (Sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 of the Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] The Court intends, by this judgment, to confirm in writing its reasons for the decision rendered during the hearing held on November 25, 2015. [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion for Protection filed on May 7, 2015, pursuant to

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A (hereafter, " the Director" ), to have the security and development of the child, X, born on […], 2014, declared to be in danger. [ 3 ] At the time the Court was initially seized of this matter, the child was living with her father and his female roommate. On May 6, 2015 at 2:30 A.M., the father jumped from his third story balcony and broke his leg and pelvis. [ 4 ] His apartment was found to be cluttered and in a state of disarray.

Little food was found in the refrigerator. [ 5 ] On May 7 th , the youth protection worker met with the father who disclosed that he wanted to commit suicide as he had an overwhelming feeling of guilt. He also revealed that a few months earlier, he had touched the child over her diaper while he was masturbating in front of the television, as well as some other troubling admissions of inappropriate sexual conduct with youngsters and animals in his past. [ 6 ] The father used to be a heroin addict. He is currently involved in a methadone program. He consumes marijuana on a daily basis.

[ 7 ] The mother has been visiting the child on a regular basis although she is not familiar with her needs and routine and cannot at this point in time assume her care on a full-time basis. [ 8 ] On May 8, 2015, the Court orders the provisional foster care of the child in a foster family, while also ordering a number of interim measures until the hearing of the Motion for Protection . [ 9 ] Considering that the case is not ready to proceed because certain evaluations have not been made and that the matter will require at least a one-day hearing, the hearing of July 24, 2015 is postponed. [ 10 ] At the hearing of November 25, 2015, as a principal measure, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to the care of a foster family until May 6, 2016.

The Director also recommends other measures which are sought to resolve the situation which has put the security and development of the child in danger, as appears from the Addendum filed as Exhibit D-9. [ 11 ] The mother is present at the hearing.

Her attorney proceeds to make a number of admissions on her behalf and informs the Court that his client agrees with the Director's recommendations. [ 12 ] The father is also present at the hearing and represented by his attorney who proceeds to make a number of admissions on behalf of her client, while agreeing with the measures sought by the Director. [ 13 ] As for the child, considering her age, her attorney does not make any admissions and consents to the measures proposed by the Director. [ 14 ] ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 15 ] Although the father does not dispute the fact that he was met and questioned by the social worker on May 7 th , he does not recall what he said. [ 16 ] At the hearing of the Motion for Protection , his lawyer states on his behalf that the Director is rightful in feeling that if he is under the influence of a toxic substance such as drugs or in a psychosis, he would represent a serious risk of sexual abuse for X. [ 17 ] The reports filed in the Court record indicate that the father was in a state of toxic psychosis due to consuming Ritalin and cocaine when the events of May 6 th occurred. [ 18 ] He has been receiving treatment from the Centre de recherche et d'aide pour narcomanes ( CRAN ) since October 2009 where he has been receiving substitution medication (methadone) (see the letters filed as Exhibits P-1 and P-2). [ 19 ] The father was once again hospitalized in the in-patient toxicology and mental health program at St-Luc Hospital from August 18 th to September 18, 2015 after his treatment specialists at CRAN had detected signs of an upcoming relapse of his psychosis. [ 20 ] The following diagnoses have been retained: non specified psychotic disorder, a disorder related to use of opiates under methadone, a disorder relating to consumption of marijuana, a misuse of psychostimulants, an antisocial personality disorder with schizotypic personality traits.

He also suffers from an Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (see the letter filed as Exhibit D-6). [ 21 ] The Court also notes that the father had been admitted to an in-patient rehabilitation program at dianova on July 22, 2015 but this program was interrupted on August 6 th due to his serious pain and disrespectful behaviour and language. He also failed to respect the rules and modalities of the program. [ 22 ] In

summary, the father has serious mental health issues for which he must take medication ( abilify ) supervised daily at his drugstore. When he relapses into drug abuse, the results can be devastating as evidenced by the events of May 6 th . [ 23 ] The Court notes that the father has remained appropriate with X during all of the supervised visits he has had with her.

He demonstrated his parental capacities and provided X with a balance of autonomy and boundaries. [ 24 ] This being said, the father must put an end to his drug consumption problems once and for all as this is a serious risk factor for a young and vulnerable child such as X. His challenge is thus to make additional gains while maintaining those which he has already acquired. [ 25 ] As for the mother, she has been diligently attending weekly parenting classes and attempts to apply some of the tools she has learned in her weekly visits with X.

The Parental Capacity Evaluation of psychologist Niki Saros of October 5, 2015 filed as Exhibit D- 8 reveals that there are signs of problems in the attachment between the mother and X which will have to be addressed. [ 26 ] The mother shows a genuine interest in improving her parenting capacities and the Court encourages to pursue her efforts in this regard. [ 27 ] As the Court indicated to the parents at the hearing, this order will be for a short period and it is important that they invest themselves fully in the social follow-up if they want to play a significant role in the life of their child. [ 28 ] It appears that X continues to do well in general in the foster home where she has been placed despite the indiscriminate affection and comfort she displays towards most strangers she encounters. [ 29 ] After having received the admissions and taken into consideration the position of the parties, the testimony of the social worker, as well as the reports and documents filed in the Court record, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the security and development of the child are in danger pursuant to the Youth Protection Act .

[ 30 ] The Court is also of the opinion that the measures proposed by the Director are in the interest of the X. [ 31 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT HEREBY: [ 32 ] GRANTS the Motion for Protection ; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are in danger pursuant to Subsections 38 b) 1°i. , 38 b) 2° and 38 d) 2° of the Youth Protection Act , namely neglect of basic physical needs, serious risk of neglect, as well as serious risk of sexual abuse; [ 34 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster home; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] ORDERS that these contacts minimally be of a duration of an hour and a half (1 ½) every week for each parent; [ 38 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father follow through with recommenda-tions made by mental health and substance abuse professionals at Hôpital Saint-Luc ; [ 39 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father's undertaking to follow through with such recommendations; [ 40 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father undergo random drug testing when requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection; and in this regard, [ 41 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent to do so; [ 42 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to seek services to improve her parenting capacities; and, [ 43 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent to do so; [ 44 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the social worker’s undertaking to refer the mother to relevant or appropriate services in this regard; [ 45 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in her parental capacity evaluation; [ 46 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with treating professionals regarding attendance and progress; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, for the purposes of executing these measures; [ 49 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgment by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 50 ] ALL OF THESE MEASURES will be in force until May 6, 2016.

Signed and filed on February 25, 2016 _______________________________________ JACQUES A. NADEAU, J.C.Q.

Mtre Isabelle Loranger AI0942 Attorney for the Director Mtre Michel Leclerc AX2825 Attorney for the child Mtre Alexandre Lenis AX3276 Attorney for the mother Mtre Louise Denault AX9358 Attorney for the father Hearing date: November 25, 2015 JAN/mcl