2019 QCCQ 19468, 2019 QCCQ 19468

Protection de la jeunesse — 197882 2019 QCCQ 19468 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-030162-150 Date: May 10, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2006 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT Sections 95 and 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.

P-34.1 ) 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 10, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with an Application for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on October 6, 2017, whereby the now twelve year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of his parents with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s four siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application for revision dated November 15, 2017, are as follows: 3.1. the child and siblings are not appropriately supervised; 3.2. on November 6, 2017, the educator noted marks on Y’s arm; 3.3. although the mother stated that the marks came from using coloured markers, the child reported that she had suffered burns to her arm; 3.4. it was determined that while the father was at work and the mother was raking leaves outside, X spilled the boiling water from where he was making spaghetti onto Y’s arms and hands; 3.5. the mother had been aware that X was angry with Y that day; 3.6. the mother did not provide appropriate supervision under the circumstances; 3.7. the mother did not seek medical attention for Y; 3.8.

X has also been physically aggressive with Z; 3.9. the mother minimizes the issue of ensuring the child’s supervision; 3.10. the mother stated that she does not agree to ensure better supervision while X is in the presence of his siblings;

3.11. X is demonstrating certain academic and behavioural problems at school, and on the school bus, and the parents have not responded to the school’s requests to address these issues (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] The evidence was heard over the course of several months and numerous assessments were completed to better understand the family’s situation. [ 6 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-11 to D-21: D-11: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated March 7, 2018; D- 12: Letter from Dr. Niki Saros, dated July 16, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-13: Psychological Assessment Report, prepared by Jullian Budd, dated June 28, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-14: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated August 1, 2018; D-15: Parental Capacity Evaluation, prepared by Dr. Niki Saros, dated August 8, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-16: Mother’s psychiatric expertise, prepared by Dr. Daniel Frank, dated August 13, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-17: En liasse Father’s parental capacity evaluation and curriculum vitae, prepared by Dr. Niki Saros, dated November 19, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-18: Diagnosis assessment report, prepared by Dr. Stella Benarroch, dated December 12, 2018; D-19: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated January 8, 2018; D-20: Letter prepared by Dr. Rachel Tessier, dated January 24, 2019 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-21: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated April 29, 2019.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 7 ] Following numerous provisional measures, the final measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection were that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center, with an integration to his father’s care after nine months, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 8 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lefebvre, opposed the measures and wanted her son entrusted to her care. [ 9 ] The father, assisted by Me Cloutier, agreed to all the proposed measures. [ 10 ] The child, represented by Me Benoit, wished to return to his family.

CONTEXT [ 11 ] The child’s provisional placement in foster care was ordered on February 21, 2018 and the hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on March 16, 2018. [ 12 ] The parties all admitted the necessity of the child’s continued placement in foster care and reached an agreement on provisional measures, including that the child undergo a psychological assessment. [ 13 ] The mother then also agreed to participate in a parental capacity assessment as well as to resume contact with her son as soon as he felt ready, following modalities to be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, taking into account the child’s wishes. [ 14 ] However, the mother’s inability to adequately supervise her children, one of whom burnt herself with a hot iron, led to the application of immediate protective measures in July 2018 whereby the younger children were also placed in foster care. [ 15 ] Shortly thereafter, the Court ordered that the siblings be returned to the care of their father on the condition that they never be left alone with the mother. [ 16 ] The hearing on the merits was continued on August 16, 2018.

The Director then recommended that X remain in foster care and that his four siblings also be entrusted to a foster home. Both parents opposed the recommendations and wanted the children in their care. [ 17 ] As the mother agreed to begin therapy and the father took steps to become the children’s primary caregiver, the younger children were returned to their father’s care while X’s placement was extended. [ 18 ] On December 4, 2018, the Director filed an application recommending that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation center given that his foster mother no longer felt able to manage his behavior.

He was caught stealing and admitted to having been doing so since the age of six. He also allegedly made serious threats at school. [ 19 ] The application was granted and X was placed in a rehabilitation center. [ 20 ] When the hearing was continued on January 15, 2019, the mother undertook to follow all the recommendations in her Psychiatric Assessment as well as to participate in joint counselling with the father, and all parties agreed to maintain the status quo to

assess the impact of the mother’s efforts and the hearing was scheduled to continue on May 10, 2019. [ 21 ] However, the Court was seized with an application for revision and for provisional measures on January 28, 2019 as medication was prescribed for X following recommendations in his Diagnostic Assessment yet the mother opposed the prescribed medication for her son. [ 22 ] The father, who was in favour of the recommended trial, was granted the sole exercise of parental authority with respect to the child’s medical needs. [ 23 ] The hearing on the merits was finally completed on May 10, 2019.

ANALYSIS [ 24 ] As described in the Court Report dated March 7, 2018 [2] the child’s aggressive behavior at school as well as his neglected homework and appearance became increasingly alarming, as did the parents’ apparent unwillingness to collaborate to support the child. [ 25 ] An altercation between the mother and child escalated and the mother considered sending him back to his grandmother’s in Ontario. The child claimed to have been punched by his mother while his father remained passive. The mother acknowledged the conflict and admitted to ripping her son’s shirt but denied punching him.

That was the incident that led to the child’s placement in foster care where he initially appeared to be doing very well and sought to keep a distance from his family. [ 26 ] While in foster care, he disclosed more incidents of physical abuse by his mother: He further disclosed that Ms.

A hit him on several different occasions in the past. […] He reported that his mother has repeatedly used a closed fist to hit him on his shoulder, chest and knees. [3] [ 27 ] The Addendum dated August 1, 2018 describes his initial progress in foster care: Since placement, X’s school performance improved greatly. […] He feels safer and happier at the foster home compared to staying at home because there is no yelling. […] In spite of these testing behaviors and his difficulty regulating his emotions, the support and consistency provided by the foster mother is helping X stabilize. [4] [ 28 ] However, when his behavior significantly deteriorated and led to his removal from the foster home and his placement in a rehabilitation center, a diagnostic assessment report was completed “to investigate his current mental health and functioning” [5] . [ 29 ] A diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder was ruled out.

However, X was diagnosed with severe ADHD and moderate ODD as well as Specific Learning Disorder “with impairment in reading and mathematics” [6] . [ 30 ] These findings help to better understand his academic struggles as well as his behavioral challenges: Conforming to behavioural expectations requires impulse control, delaying gratification, etc. all areas are negatively affected by ADHD.

Furthermore his stealing behaviour can also be viewed as an impulse control issue which is especially challenging for X to inhibit as he reports having engaged in this behaviour in varying degrees since a young age and he has never been treated for ADHD. [7] [ 31 ] Numerous recommendations are made to support the child including pharmacological and psychosocial interventions, an Individual Education Plan, participation in social skills groups with his peers, as well as physical activity to help with mood regulation. [ 32 ] The father has since been ensuring the child’s attendance at regular medical appointments to monitor and adjust his medication as required. [ 33 ] Although the child would like to return home, it is clear that his behavior remains very challenging and that he continues to require the structure of a rehabilitation center. [ 34 ] Although his ability to focus in class has significantly improved, he still “has very poor hygiene habits” [8] and can become aggressive and disruptive. [ 35 ] Visits with his mother can be disturbing because of her unpredictable behavior: It was observed that there is very little interaction between Ms.

A and X during visits. It was also observed that X was often asked by Ms. A to help her out with his younger siblings. Ms. A is also often disorganized and cannot manage all the children even in the contained space of the family room. Her mood was observed to be labile. She can be calm and happy and then explode at something innocuous. This is upsetting and confusing for all the children, including X. [9] [ 36 ] However, they have been improving. The mother has been attending weekly supervised visits since February 2019 and X appears eager to share news with his mother.

[ 37 ] He also enjoys visits with his father and yearns for more “alone time” together. [ 38 ] In addition to the child’s specific challenges, the evidence also establishes that the mother is especially ill-equipped to deal with them. [ 39 ] Her psychiatric assessment helps to explain her volatile behavior as well as her difficulty in addressing her children’s needs: Ms. A can be diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder and an underlying dysthymic disorder – long-standing depressive disorder whose features fall short of those of a more symptomatic, major depressive disorder. […] Ms.

A’s personality has been determinant of her inappropriate behavior toward her children and her dysfunctional interactions with the DYP’s attempts to improve the situation for her and them. The psychiatric condition has impacted Ms. A’s ability to care for her children and her tendency to blame others for difficulties that are not theirs [10] (emphasis added). [ 40 ] The assessment concludes: […] I would recommended that, if and when she is able to consent to such advice, that Ms. A undergo an open-ended course of psychodynamic psychotherapy.

At present, she remains too intimidated and defensive to accept such suggestion. This is unfortunate because she has psychological qualities that suggest that she could benefit from it. [11] […] Currently, Ms. A shows deficiencies in parenting her children and thus represents an ongoing risk to their welfare and development. [12] [ 41 ] The psychiatrist’s conclusions are consisted with the observations in the mother’s parental capacity assessment: The psychometric testing data reveal principal parent characteristics and family context variables that impact Ms. A’s parenting competence.

Although she appears to have some insight regarding her symptoms, this awareness is fleeting. Her distrust and suspiciousness of youth protection appears to be a sentiment that is generalized across people and situations and she is prone to feeling that others are conspiring against her . She isolates and defensively withdraws in self-protection against perceived threats. This cycle may be associated with depressive symptomatology, which on the basis of her ratings is estimated to be at moderate clinical level of severity. Depression depletes her inner resources and contributes to immobilization and inactivity.

In the absence of effective coping skills and problem-solving strategies, it is exponentially more difficult for her to manage day to day caregiving demands and as importantly, to appropriately respond to her children’s need for nurturance, affection, stimulation, and guidance. The neglect of the children’s emotional needs is a significant risk factor [13] (emphasis added). [ 42 ] Regarding her son X in particular: With X, she designates responsibilities that exceed both his age and his level of maturity (e.g. supervising his siblings), which has resulted in serious risk.

Furthermore, although X has been identified to have delays, she considers him to be a “normal” child and in this way, she does not acknowledge his impairment and the resulting impact on his cognitive and social-emotional development . The high level of parenting stress and depressive symptoms identified by the testing data likely account for Ms. A’s lack of attunement to her children’s needs and her inability to provide structure in the home [14] (emphasis added). and more generally: The assessment results suggest that Ms.

A genuinely identifies with her maternal role and wishes to raise her children in an intact family.

Though the inherent challenge of caring for five young children should not be understated, impressions from the assessment results suggest that there are underlying mental health issues, which serve to limit her capacity to function competently in her parenting role in fundamental areas: basic care, ensuring safety, emotional warmth, stimulation, guidance and boundaries, and stability (emphasis added). […] It is the impression of the undersigned that the psychological needs and physical safety of the children are at risk in the care of Ms. A .

A period of stabilization of her circumstances is considered to be necessary to give her the opportunity to follow recommendations that are proposed in order to assist her to meet minimal parenting standards [15] (emphasis added). [ 43 ] Despite the mother’s repeated claims to make efforts to redress the situation, she unfortunately systematically refuses the services that are offered. [ 44 ] She failed to collaborate with the educator assigned to help the family in the home as well as to participate in the SNAP program. [ 45 ] Unfortunately, the mother also failed to follow-through with her stated intention to seek therapeutic services: On March 25, 2019, this worker asked Ms.

A regarding a referral for therapy. She reported that she does not see the necessity of going into therapy thus she has not taken any steps to obtain a referral from her GP. [16] [ 46 ] Moreover, the parents not only did not begin joint-counselling, the couple broke up as the father claimed: […] it has become very clear to him that he can no longer live with Ms. A. He is willing to take care of the children alone at the exclusion of Ms. A. [17] [ 47 ] Under the circumstances, the evidence clearly establishes that the child’s placement remains necessary and that medical and

support services are urgently needed to stabilize his behavior and help him reach his potential. [ 48 ] Despite her repeated expressed intention to seek help, the mother has failed to follow through with any of the steps recommended to help her better meet her children’s needs. [ 49 ] She is a very hard-working, caring parent who deeply values her role as a mother and clearly loves her children.

However, her erratic, explosive behavior as well as her inability to effectively supervise her children and set appropriate boundaries puts her children at risk. [ 50 ] Despite the consistent recommendations of numerous professionals acknowledging her difficult past and identifying her need for help, she has been reluctant to make any attempt at meaningful change. [ 51 ] She is strongly encouraged to focus on trying to heal herself as much as possible, and in turn to become a more reliable, supportive parent for her children. [ 52 ] In the meantime, the father has demonstrated his commitment to ensuring a steady, comforting presence for his children. [ 53 ] As summarized in his parental capacity assessment: […] Mr.

B shares a close emotional bond with his children. He related to them in a calm manner, and with sensitivity and affection. [18] [ 54 ] It will be essential that he continue to collaborate closely with all professionals involved as X is gradually returned to his care. [ 55 ] Under the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child’s interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 56 ] GRANTS the application; [ 57 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 58 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation for one year, with a re-integration to his father’s care after nine months, if the situation allows; [ 59 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents and siblings be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary, taking into account the child’s best interest and wishes; [ 60 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties and, in the absence of an agreement, that they be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as necessary; [ 61 ] ORDERS that contacts take place minimally twice a week for a minimal duration of two hours; [ 62 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to encourage contacts between the child and his mother as soon as her situation has been stabilised; [ 63 ] RECOMMENDS that contacts be increased taking into account the child’s interest, as the situation allows; [ 64 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES the father to exercise those attributes for the purpose of signing any necessary consents for the child’s medical needs; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the parents take steps to use appropriate means of discipline with the child and refrain from using physical discipline; [ 66 ] ORDERS the father to ensure that the child’s medical needs are met in a timely fashion and follow the recommendations made by his treating professionals; [ 67 ] ORDERS that the child undergo a psychiatric assessment and follow the recommendations that may be made; [ 68 ] ORDERS that the child receive medication pertaining to his ADHD diagnosis; [ 69 ] ORDERS that the child continue to benefit from therapeutic services as recommended in his Diagnostic Assessment ; [ 70 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in regular physical activities and social skills groups with his peers, as recommended in his Diagnostic Assessment ; [ 71 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother make an appointment with a general physician to obtain a referral to a clinic that specializes in personality disorders; [ 72 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with the professionals involved with the family;

[ 73 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and attend meetings as required; [ 74 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family, including the services of an educator; [ 75 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 76 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on July 3, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Dominique Douglas Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Me Francis Cloutier Attorney for the father Hearing dates: March 16 and August 16, 2018, and January 15, and May 10, 2019. TD/vl