2014 QCCQ 14882, 2014 QCCQ 14882

Protection de la jeunesse — 143157 2014 QCCQ 14882 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001606-133 640-41-001608-139 640-41-001607-131 640-41-001771-143 DATE: July 17, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2007 Y , born on […], 2008 Z , born on […], 2010 A , born on […], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant B , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother and C , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). Concerning X, Y and Z [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend its decision rendered on March 14, 2014. One of the measures ordered in that judgment was to entrust the children in a foster home for a period of three months. Concerning A [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to declare the security or development of the child endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° (ii), b) 2° and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The hearing started on June 6, 2014 in Town A. The mother was absent. Me Beaudet who was representing the mother told the Court that his client would not attend the hearing. He asked the permission to withdraw from the case, which was granted by the Court. [ 4 ] The father was present and represented by his lawyer. The children were absent but represented by their lawyer. [ 5 ] The hearing resumed on June 13, in Town B. The mother was present. She was not represented and did not wish to be represented. The father was present and represented.

The children were absent but represented. [ 6 ] The parties ask the Court to proceed in a joint hearing for all the children because of the similarity of the facts. The Court grants that motion. Concerning X, Y and Z [ 7 ] The father admitted that: • On April 3 and 16, 2014 the mother tested positive for cocaine during her 8 th month of pregnancy; • On [...], 2014 the baby (

A) was born and entrusted two days later in a foster home; • He still uses cannabis on a regular basis;

• On May 20, 2014 the parents refused a random drug test. Concerning A [ 8 ] The father admitted that: • The parents separated several times due to conflicts; • The mother is unpredictable and can be aggressive towards people. [ 9 ] He admitted in part that: • He is unable to control himself when upset or angry; • The parents do not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] The father's position concerning the fact that the children's security or development is endangered is ambivalent.

At the beginning of the hearing he admitted that the children's safety was compromised and he denied it when he testified. He wants all his children back with him. [ 11 ] There is no admission from the children. [ 12 ] The applicant recommends that all the children be entrusted to a foster home for a period of 12 months if the Court decides that their security or development is still endangered pursuant to the law.

He recommends the same measure for the baby if the Court concludes that her security or development is endangered pursuant to the law. [ 13 ] The Court considers the following facts proven by preponderant evidence. [ 14 ] Mr [Social Worker 1] testifies on behalf of the Director of Youth Protection. His report is filed on D-3 with other documents relevant to the case. [ 15 ] Basically his testimony is about the parents' lack of collaboration with the Director. [ 16 ] The parents don’t accept the Director of Youth Protection involvement in their family. [ 17 ] Their collaboration has always been irregular.

Most of the time they don’t go to the follow-up scheduled with the Youth Protection worker. They don’t accept the supervision of the children's visits. Also they don’t respect the Court orders. [ 18 ] In May the situation worsened. [ 19 ] On April 3, 2014 the mother tested positive on cocaine while she was pregnant.

On April 16, the mother tested again positive on cocaine. [ 20 ] On [...], 2014 the mother gave birth to A in Town C. [ 21 ] On May 7, A was placed in a foster home until the Court hearing scheduled on May 21, 2014. [ 22 ] Because of this placement the parents were upset and threatened the Youth Protection workers. [ 23 ] On May 9, the consultant [Social Worker 2] met the parents concerning the situation. She told them which appropriate steps must be taken in order to improve it.

The father explained to her that when he got angry he could not control himself. [ 24 ] On May 19 and 20, the father refused to submit to a random drug test. On May 20, the mother accepted to submit to a random test but after talking to her spouse she left the hospital and the test was not done. Those random tests were ordered by the Court in its last judgment. [ 25 ] On May 18, the mother was involved in a fight with another woman. [ 26 ] On May 21, the Court ordered provisional compulsory foster care of A in a foster family for a period of thirty days. The Court ordered also the supervision of the contacts.

The Court also ordered the parents to submit themselves to random drug tests and took judicial notice of the parents' consent to perform those tests. [ 27 ] On May 23, the mother attended a follow-up with a Youth Protection worker. She also submitted herself to a random drug test. When the worker started to discuss with her about how the parents can improve their situation the mother refused to collaborate and left the office. On the same date the father refused the drug test and said he will continue to use drug. [ 28 ] On the same date a supervised lunch hour visit was scheduled for the parents.

The mother was happy to see her children. The father was upset because the visit was supervised. The worker tried to explain the judgment but the parents blamed him for the supervision. [ 29 ] Mr [Social Worker 1] said there is no intervention plan to work with the parents. As they don’t collaborate it is impossible to work with them. However there are some resources available in the community concerning drug and alcohol abuse if the parents choose to use them. [ 30 ] Because of their lack of collaboration Mr [Social Worker 1] doesn't know what kind of help can be offered to these parents to

improve their situation. [ 31 ] As for the children, Y and X were met by a psychologist on March 20, 2014. [ 32 ] Each child produced a drawing. X produced a drawing of her family. However her drawing shows « a perception of a relative emotional distance between children and parents in the family.

She is likely expressing also that she might be assuming the role of an emotional replacement parent for her younger siblings » [1] . [ 33 ] The psychologist's recommendation was the following [2] : Considering what seems to be represented as a sign of relative disengagement and distance on the part of the parents in X's drawing but also the possibility of a compensation role that she would play with her younger siblings, it would certainly be useful to keep observing the children's behavior and development during their placement and also when they will be back with their parents.

If this role of replacement parent is confirmed and goes on, we would certainly recommend a more formal psychological assessment for X and likely psychotherapy to make sure that her development is not affected. He also added that his comments are based on a very limited collection of data in a very short delay and do not respond to a formal psychological assessment. The father [ 34 ] Basically he says that he misses his children.

According to his testimony all his personal problems are the result of the Director of Youth Protection's involvement in his family's life. [ 35 ] Concerning his own behaviour he doesn't acknowledge any particular problem. He admits smoking cannabis twice a week as a replacement for cocaine and alcohol. He doesn't smoke in front of the children. [ 36 ] He didn't know that the mother used cocaine when she was in Town C. He admits that it could worsen the children's situation, [ 37 ] He admits that his relationship with the mother can be difficult and that they can be upset with each other.

According to him their relationship is strained because of the children's placement in foster homes. [ 38 ] He admits also that they had several conflicts and that they separated many times. Last time was on January 14, and it is because of the children's placement. [ 39 ] He takes classes in plastering and painting. This course ends in October and the father is paid for this training. When the course will end he will seek employment. [ 40 ] He admits not showing up at the appointments scheduled by the Youth Protection worker.

According to him the reasons are that he had to go to his course that he had started on March 23. [ 41 ] He admits having a personal problem with Mr [Social Worker 1]. However he admits that he was collaborating with [Social Worker 3]. He stopped his collaboration when the baby was placed in a foster home. [ 42 ] He admits also that the mother is unpredictable and can be aggressive towards people. According to him she is sad because of the children's placement. [ 43 ] He admits having problem to control his anger.

According to him it starts only after the children's placement. [ 44 ] He doesn't need any treatment or therapy. He doesn't need the Youth Protection in his life. [ 45 ] He doesn't know why his children are placed in foster homes. [ 46 ] He is against the supervision of his contacts with the children. [ 47 ] He lives with the mother at the maternal grandfather's house. He and his wife are on the Housing's waiting list in order to have their own house. The mother [ 48 ] The mother is sad and misses her children. She doesn't understand the reason of their placement. [ 49 ] She admits being depressed.

She sleeps a lot and doesn't do the domestic chores. [ 50 ] She met with a psychologist on May 20, 2014 for about thirty minutes. It was the first time she met a psychologist. She was supposed to see him again next Thursday but she didn't show up. She says that she was too tired to attend the appointment. [ 51 ] According to the mother she has no alcohol or drug abuse problem. She admits using cocaine twice because she was feeling alone. [ 52 ] She thinks that a couple therapy can be helpful for her and her spouse.

She did not discuss that matter with him. [ 53 ] According to her Mr [Social Worker 1] lies to her and her spouse. [ 54 ] She does not agree with the supervision of the visits. Her father is against it and does not want any social worker in his home.

[ 55 ] She wants to have her children back with her and states she can take care of them.

Analysis and decision • X, Y and Z [ 56 ] Is the children's security or development still compromised pursuant to the law? [ 57 ] For the Director of Youth Protection the children's situation is still compromised for the same reasons already decided by this Court. [ 58 ] According to the father's lawyer maybe the children's situation is still compromised because of the « instability of the parents relationship ». [ 59 ] For the children's lawyer there is no preponderant evidence that their situation is still compromised. [ 60 ] According to the evidence as a whole the Court concludes that the situation of X, Y and Z is still compromised for the following reasons. [ 61 ] Basically the situation of that family is mostly the same since the last judgment. [ 62 ] On August 30, 2013 the mother admits having alcohol and drugs related problems. [ 63 ] Today she explains her cocaine consumption because of her loneliness.

However according to the psychologist's report the mother's alcohol and drug issue is much more important than that. [ 64 ] On May 20, 2014 the psychologist writes about the mother that [3] : « She says she would be ok with going for a six weeks treatment. She mentions [Centre A] where her father went himself ten years ago. There seems to be a genuine acknowledgment that she needs to work on taking control of addictions to drugs and alcool (sic) to be in a better position as a parent.

She cries when she expresses that she wants her children back. » [ 65 ] The mother also admits that she feels depressed and sad because of the children's placement. [ 66 ] On August 30, she disclosed that she was overwhelmed and to tired to raise the children without the support of the father. [ 67 ] The father admits that his relationship with the mother is still strained and that sometimes they are upset at each other because of the children's placement. [ 68 ] Their relationship's instability is nothing new. This issue was present in both judgments. [ 69 ] The mother still displays aggressive behaviour.

The father admits that her spouse can be aggressive towards other people. On May 18, the mother was involved in a fight with another woman. [ 70 ] According to the parents the financial situation of the family is better now because the father receives money for his course. [ 71 ] Except for their financial situation the parents didn't change their life. There is no preponderant evidence of new facts on that point. • A [ 72 ] Concerning the baby the evidence is preponderant that the mother is still dealing with drug and alcohol abuse issues. Also she tested twice positive to cocaine during her pregnancy.

The mother deals also with other personal issues previously discussed in this judgment. Also the parents live instability in their relationship. [ 73 ] The Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on […], 2007, Y, born on […], 2008 and Z, born on […], 2010 is still endangered pursuant to the law. [ 74 ] The Court concludes that the security or development of A, born on […], 2014 is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . The evidence is insufficient as for

section 38 b) 1° (ii) of the same law. The measures [ 75 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to entrust all the children to foster homes for a period of 12 moths. [ 76 ] The parents ask the Court to maintain the children under their care. [ 77 ] The children's lawyer shares the same position. [ 78 ] All the parties admit that this family's situation is not perfect. [ 79 ] The Court is of the opinion that the situation is far from that. [ 80 ] Mr [Social Worker 1] asks the Court to entrust the children to a foster family for a period of 12 months. He is unable to explain why a period of 12 months is appropriate.

[ 81 ] As it was mentioned in the last judgment it is still very difficult for the Court to know what are the children's needs, the services offered to help them and their follow-up. [ 82 ] At least X and Y were seen by a psychologist on March 20. According to the psychologist's report his comments are based on a very limited collection of data in a very short delay and do not constitute a psychological assessment.

Which steps are taken by the Director of Youth Protection to ensure that a complete psychological assessment for both children will be performed? [ 83 ] The Director of Youth Protection filed on D-6 a letter from [nurse A]. This letter is about the fact that all children's medical appointments are up to date. Concerning X it is mentioned that the [nurse A] is waiting for a date of confirmation with cardiology in Town D.

What is X's condition that she needs an appointment in cardiology? [ 84 ] Concerning the parents Mr [Social Worker 1] explained that it was impossible to help them in any way because of their lack of collaboration. There is no intervention plan for them for the same reasons. [ 85 ] The Court understands that the Director of Youth Protection cannot impose an intervention plan to parents who don't want to collaborate with him.

In such a situation the Director of Youth Protection can only control and supervise the parents. [ 86 ] Those parents don't collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and threaten the workers since the beginning of his intervention in this situation. They don't collaborate and they don't respect the Court orders. Since the beginning the father doesn't acknowledge any personal issue. Both parents try to justify their situation (ex: conflicts, drug abuse, etc.) by the fact that their children are not living with them.

The parents had the same issues when the children were under their care. [ 87 ] The parents must understand that their children were entrusted to foster families because of their parents' issues that endangered their security or development. [ 88 ] Up to now the parents have not taken the necessary steps to improve their situation. They could at least have used the available resources in their community. It was not done. [ 89 ] As for the Director of Youth Protection he has to be proactive in this family's situation.

Even if the parents don't collaborate with him he must take the necessary steps to unblock a situation that persists for many months and that endangered the security or development of the children and also the children-parents bond. [ 90 ] The psychologist's remark concerning X can suggest that this bond is already endangered by the situation. [ 91 ] The evidence is preponderant that the parents situation didn't improve and that they didn't take the steps to change it. Thus the Court cannot entrust the children to their care. [ 92 ] The parents must improve their situation right now.

The Court reminds them that it can order a placement only for a limited period of time. When this period is over the Court must take a decision in order to ensure stability to all the children. [ 93 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act reads as follow: 91.1. If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 94 ] The Court reminds the Director of Youth Protection that he must provide the necessary services to that family in order to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children is endangered. [ 95 ] This family's situation looks like a rope pulling game where the children are caught between the Director of Youth Protection's powerlessness and the parents' obstinacy to not collaborate.

In that game the losers are the children. It must stop for their own sake. For these reasons the Court:

[ 96 ] Grants partially the motion; [ 97 ] Maintains that the security or development of X, born on […], 2007, Y, born on […], 2008 and Z, born on […], 2010 is still endangered pursuant to the law; [ 98 ] Declares that the security or development of A, born on […], 2014 is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 2° and

c) of the Youth Protection Act; [ 99 ] orders the following measures for a period of eight months; [ 100 ] Orders that X, Y, Z and A be entrusted in a foster family without any possibility of reintegration; [ 101 ] Orders that all the contacts between the parents and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, frequency and modalities; [ 102 ] Orders the parents to remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 103 ] Orders that X and Y attend school on a regular basis; [ 104 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid counselling and assistance to the children and the parents; [ 105 ] Orders that X and Y receive a psychological assessment and a follow-up if necessary; [ 106 ] Recommends that the mother receive a psychological assessment and a follow-up if necessary; [ 107 ] Orders that all the children receive all the medical services required by their condition; [ 108 ] Orders the parents to collaborate to the execution of this enactment; [ 109 ] Recommends to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to evaluate the services provided to the children and the parents by the Director of Youth Protection up to now; [ 110 ] Orders the police to collaborate to the execution of this enactment; [ 111 ] Entrusts the situation of all the children to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Suzanne Arpin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Yan Massé, attorney for the children Me Clara Lafrance-Egervari, attorney for the father Dates of hearing: June 6 and 13, 2014