r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 19386

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610160 2016 QCCQ 19386 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004715-143 DATE: December 19, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2014 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection requests the revision of a decision rendered on July 14, 2016 concerning the child X.

In virtue of this order, the Court provides for the progressive reintegration of the child from foster care to his mother’s environment. Concurrently, there is also termination of the supervision of the mother’s contacts as well as suspension of the father’s access rights. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the revision of this decision, alleging the failure of the reintegration process, notably in reason of the continued fragility of the mother/son bond.

Within a majority order, the Director recommends that X in his foster family with supervised access to his mother. [ 3 ] The mother subscribes to the specific protective measures sought by the Director, but submits that her son’s interest dictates a shorter order to allow her to clarify and stabilize her situation towards an eventual return of her son to her care. [ 4 ] The father recognizes that his situation is unchanged since the last order.

As to the revision, he supports the mother’s position and reiterates his intention to take steps to stabilize his personal situation and eventually re-establish contacts with his son. [ 5 ] Within her legal mandate, X’s attorney pleads that the Director’s orientation represents his best interests. [ 6 ] Context [ 7 ] Following the terms of the last judgment, X remains in foster care and a calendar of the contacts with his mother is agreed upon, providing a progressive increase of these in frequency and duration, the whole towards the objective of a complete reintegration as of October 15, 2016.

An educator is put in place to support this process. [ 8 ] The first non-supervised visit occurs on July 22. X is inconsolable. His mother is able to remain calm and attentive to her son. She uses various strategies, without success. Following the visit, she names being discouraged by her son’s distress. [ 9 ] As the visitation periods proceed, this situation fails to improve despite the mother’s efforts and the support of social services. [ 10 ] On August 2, there is a sleepover at the mother’s home. X is in crisis and refuses to go to sleep.

The mother is unable to comfort him and eventually resorts to calling the foster family to come and get him. [ 11 ] Increasingly, X’s reactions intensify quickly around the contacts with his mother. He cries and screams, calls for his foster mother and refuses physical contacts with his mother. Ms A’s is overwhelmed by her son’s behaviours even though, throughout the

contacts, she continues to demonstrate adequate parental capacities and empathy as to her son’s distress. [ 12 ] Following his visits with his mother, X demonstrates numerous problematic behaviours, namely: • Hypervigilance; • Physical violence; • Self-mutilation; • Mood swings, • Sleep disturbance; [ 13 ] Ms A eventually chooses to distance herself and misses numerous visitation periods. As of September, she accepts to resume supervised visits at the Director’s offices.

In this familiar environment, X is able to gradually resume positive and affectionate interactions with his mother. [ 14 ] The mother recognizes that she is not ready to assume her son’s care. She states needing to continue to work towards stabilizing her personal situation. She understands that her son’s reactions stem from a fear of losing his foster family and that he needs their contacts to be in a reassuring environment, such as the Director’s offices.

She eventually wishes her son’s return in her care, but realizes that such is not possible at the present time. [ 15 ] A letter from the child’s pediatrician stipulates the following: • In September 2016, X has a significant speech delay, is extremely anxious and inconsolable. He has moments of ‘’spacing out’’ and avoids eye contact. • In December 2016, X is seen to have made significant progress in his development and no longer demonstrates distress. [ 16 ] X’s father testifies at the hearing. He reiterates his plans for his future following his discharge from detention, scheduled for the beginning of 2017.

He states already having a job and a place of residence waiting for him. He wants to have continued involvement in regards to his son despite the suspension of contacts and declares having difficulties reaching the caseworker from detention. [ 17 ] Mr. B submits that Ms A was not given a sufficient chance to prove that she can care for their son.

He considers that X’s best interests are that the measures continue to work towards a return in his family environment. [ 18 ] Analysis and decision [ 19 ] The reintegration process was destined to present challenges and this, considering the history of the family situation. The progressive nature of such was destined to support the mother and X towards this goal. [ 20 ] The evolution of the situation since the last order establishes that neither the mother nor X are able to sustain a reintegration. [ 21 ] Ms.

A continues to compose with her personal difficulties and although she is sustains good parental capacities, these are insufficient to address the insecure bond with her son. X’s reactions testify amply to this. [ 22 ] Her sensitivity to her son’s distress, although commendable, underpins her decision to distance herself from him during the difficult reintegration process and testifies to her own fragilities.

This also serves to reinforce X’s insecurities and further fracture their bond. [ 23 ] As well, a further six months have elapsed wherein X has continued to progress and anchor himself in his foster environment. [ 24 ] Notwithstanding the Court’s determination of the Director’s failure to sustain the objectives of reintegration previous to the last judgment, the facts establish that such is not the case as of then. The caseworker offers support to the mother towards the goal of reintegration and all efforts are put forth to this end.

As such, this is no longer an issue pertinent to the Court’s evaluation. [ 25 ] Neither the mother’s nor the Director’s efforts are sufficient to overcome the significant challenges which accompanied this endeavour.

X’s reactions during and surrounding his unsupervised contacts with his mother testify that their bond is neither secure nor stable. [ 26 ] The Court consequently no longer holds the conviction that either X or his mother are able to support an eventual reintegration. [ 27 ] As for X’s father, his situation remains unchanged as does the Court’s previous determination as concerns X’s contacts with him and this, even in view of a permanency order. [ 28 ] The maximum delays of placement are expired and in view of the evidence, neither of his parental environments are able to offer the rehabilitation necessary to assume his care in the short term.

X’s best interests now dictate a long term vision of the protective measures and as such, the Director’s recommendations are its reflection. [ 29 ] The Court must therefore undertake measures ensuring the stability of his care on a long term basis which, for X, is to remain in his foster family, with whom he has created affectionate and secure bonds. This family is also devoted to his care and available on a permanent basis.

[ 30 ] Considering the communication difficulties between the father and the caseworker, the Court recommends that that a

schedule of meetings be detailed in order that he may be kept apprised of his son’s evolution and further offer reports as to his personal situation. [ 31 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the application; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 34 ] REVISE the Court order rendered on July 14, 2016; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of C and D; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES that the parties agree to a progressive or complete lifting of the said supervision; [ 38 ] FORBIDS any contact between the child and his father; [ 39 ] PROHIBITS the mother from permitting contacts between the child and his father; [ 40 ] TAKES ACT that the father authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information as to his situation with his probation officer; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director to inform of their situations; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that a

schedule of meetings be detailed between the case worker and the father, in order that he may be kept apprised of his son’s evolution; [ 44 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 45 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until the child’s majority, namely [...], 2032; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Karine P.

Poissant Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the child Date of hearing: December 19, 2016