2019 QCCQ 14020, 2019 QCCQ 14020

Protection de la jeunesse — 194358 2019 QCCQ 14020 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031933-161 DATE : June 5, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on February 3, 2017. [ 2 ] On February 2, 2018, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the maternal uncle on a provisional basis. [ 3 ] At first, the Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to the foster family of her maternal uncle and that support measures be ordered until her age of majority. [ 4 ] The parents were not in agreement with the Director’s plan.

They wanted their daughter to be returned to their care as soon as possible. [ 5 ] On May 3, 2018, the Tribunal heard the testimonies of Ms. [Social Worker 1], educator, Mr. C, maternal uncle and Ms. [Social Worker 2], Youth Protection worker. [ 6 ] On September 26, 2018, the Tribunal heard the testimonies of Dr. Niki Saros, psychologist, Ms. [Social Worker 2], Youth Protection worker, the mother and the father. [ 7 ] During his testimony, the father admitted that on November 2, 2016, he shook the baby back and forth.

Considering this new information, the hearing was continued on January 22, 2019. [ 8 ] On January 22, 2019, Ms. [Social Worker 2], Youth Protection worker, testified. At that point, the Director recommended that the child be progressively integrated to her mother’s care, at the father’s exclusion. The Tribunal followed this recommendation which was agreed by the parents and by the child’s lawyer. [ 9 ] The Director is now recommending that, from May 28 to June 28, 2019, the child be entrusted to her mother and that following that date, the child be entrusted to both parents.

The Director also recommends that support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 10 ] The parents and the child’s attorney are in agreement with the Director’s plan. Question in litigation [ 11 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights?

Context and Analysis [ 12 ] The child was thriving in the home of her maternal uncle. She is reaching her developmental milestones except in the sphere of communication. She is learning to speak English and [language A]. [ 13 ] She was removed from her parent’s care on November 25, 2016. [ 14 ] The child is followed by the Montreal Children’s Hospital neurological department.

She is progressing well and shows no significant effects from her brain injuries. [ 15 ] Although the uncle and his wife are expecting a child, they remained available to care for the child for as long as needed if she cannot be returned to her parents’ care. They have been approved as a foster home for the child. The aunt and uncle collaborated actively with the Director and provided supervision for the parents regular visits. [ 16 ] The parents maintained regular supervised contacts with the child. The visits’ frequency was reduced as it was causing disruption in the child’s routine.

Until January 2018, the parents visited the child, twice per week at the uncle’s home and were supervised either by the uncle or his wife. The parents identified the child’s placement as a significant stressor in their lives and hoped for her return to their care. [ 17 ] On January 29, 2018, the maternal uncle reported to the Youth Protection worker that the mother yelled at him, in the child’s presence. During this argument, the mother threw her cell phone at the uncle.

Following this incident, it was decided that visits would take place in a neutral environment. [ 18 ] On February 1, 2018, an educator, Ms. [Social Worker 1], began working with the parents. The parents acknowledged that they need guidance and education regarding child development. [ 19 ] On February 2, 2018, when the Youth Protection worker spoke to the parents about the incident, they denied the argument ever happened. [ 20 ] From February to May 2018, visits were supervised by Ms. [Social Worker 1] and took place at [Centre A]. [ 21 ] Dr. Niki Saros, psychologist, assessed the parents’ parental capacity.

She reports the following: Analysis of the clinical data for both parents reveal a tendency toward avoiding self-disclosure, perhaps due to the need for social approval and an unwillingness to reveal personal inadequacies. The results suggest a reluctance to admit to even minor shortcomings, which contributes to an overly positive portrayal of their individual and interpersonal circumstances. […] From the youth protection history, the parents’ lack of transparency has been an obstacle to working with the family and likely stems from their fearfulness and distrust.

There seems to be no resolution for the discrepancy between the trauma history provided by the parents and the extent of (the child’

s) injuries. [1] [ 22 ] Dr.

Saros recommended that educator services be provided individually to each parents, whenever possible, to develop their parenting skills. [ 23 ] Since May 3, 2018 the parents have visited the child twice per week: once supervised by Ms. [Social Worker 1] and once by the uncle and aunt. [ 24 ] Until the September 26, 2018 hearing, the parents were admitting that the child injuries were caused while she was under their care but they mentioned being unable to understand how it was done and who had hurt her. [ 25 ] The parents reported that they participated in a 10 week parenting workshop at the YMCA. [ 26 ] The child’s pediatrician, Dr.

Elbaz, is concerned about the child’s hearing and lack of language. Following testing, it appears that she does not suffer from significant hearing loss. She suffers from delays in speech and language. It is recommended that she participates in weekly speech therapy and that she submits to a full evaluation in development/psychology. [ 27 ] On September 26, 2018, during his testimony, the father admitted that he was the one responsible for causing the child’s injuries on November 2 nd , 2016. He mentioned that when the baby started crying, he took her in his arms and tried to give her milk.

She did not want to drink milk and started crying again. The father reported that, at one point, he shook her back and forth. The baby stopped crying. Her head went back and her eyes closed. She stopped breathing. He then called his wife for help. [ 28 ] He reported that he never told the truth to his wife about the incident as he knew he had made a mistake. [ 29 ] He decided to confess as he cannot foresee being separated from his daughter until her majority. [ 30 ] Since then, the Youth Protection worker reviewed the situation with both parents. The mother felt betrayed by the father and angry.

She expressed concerns about the child being in the father’s care without supervision. The father identified the fact of being tired when he shook the child as a precipitating factor. He began attending anger management sessions. Through this process, he was able to better identify certain triggers. Both parents participated in parenting workshop at the YMCA. [ 31 ] Visits between the child and her parents were still supervised by either the maternal uncle or Ms. [Social Worker 1], educator.

[ 32 ] On January 22, 2019, the Tribunal maintained the child placed with the family of her maternal uncle, authorizing her progressive reintegration to the mother’s care, at the exclusion of her father. While organizing this process, the Director will ensure to respect the child’s rhythm. [ 33 ] Unsupervised visits were approved between the mother and the child. The child adapted well to her mother’s environment.

The mother has been able to prioritize the child’s needs. [ 34 ] The child has continued to attend daycare and weekly speech therapy sessions. [ 35 ] The father has continued to attend individual therapy in order to work on his anger management. He will have to continue his progress before unsupervised contact with his daughter can be permitted. [ 36 ] On May 11, 2019 the child fully reintegrated her mother’s care. As this reintegration is recent the Director’s intervention remains necessary. [ 37 ] Progress with this family has been remarkable.

The exceptional contribution of the Youth Protection worker and the educator has to be mentioned. Following the father’s disclosure, both parents were able to prioritize their daughter’s needs.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 38 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still in danger; [ 40 ] EXTENDS and REVISES the order rendered on February 3, 2017; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of her mother from May 28 to June 28, 2019; [ 42 ] ORDERS , following June 28, 2019, that the child be entrusted to her parent’s care; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child, her uncle, Mr.

C and his family be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to receive the services of an educator; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the father continue to receive individual therapy if it is deemed appropriate by his therapist; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the services from an educator continue to be provided to the family; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that Ms. [Social Worker 2] remain the Youth Protection worker in charge for this file; [ 50 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 51 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on June 5, 2019 /cd Mtre Georgia Limperis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Jean-Hervé Thomas Counsel for the child Mtre Lilian Stah Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: May 3, September 26 and 27, 2018, January 22 and May 28, 2019