2019 QCCQ 15919, 2019 QCCQ 15919

Protection de la jeunesse — 196011 2019 QCCQ 15919 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000464-181 DATE: September 4, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2018 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ Rectified 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 ] Considering the judgment render on August 6, 2019; [ 2 ] CONSIDERING the clerical error in the judgment of the undersigned dated 6 August 2019, regarding the motives of endangerment; [ 3 ] Considering the errors appearing in paragraphs 1, 58 and 60 concerning one

section of the law where it should read 38b)1 o

i) instead of 38b)1 o a); [ 4 ] CONSIDERING

section 475 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; [ 5 ] Considering that the initial judgment has already been served to the parties; WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 6 ] RECTIFIES the judgment rendered on August 6, 2019 so that the

section number mention on paragraphs 1, 58 and 60, be read as follows: [1] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child is in danger according to

section 38b)2 o 38b)1 o i) , 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act , because of a serious risk of neglect (parents are not providing for his basic needs), a serious risk of neglect (failing to meet the child’s basic physical needs), psychological ill-treatment and educational neglect. They all are contested by the parents. [58] After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence, we can conclude that the father has a hard time to comply with anything rather preferring to accuse others.

Obviously, he does not want to collaborate pretexting a multitude of reasons that the Court qualifies as excuses. The mother pretty much follows his lead. Considering the evidence, the Court finds that the security and the development of the child is in danger according to

section 38b)2 o , 38b)1 o i) , 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act . [60] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38b)2 o , 38b)1 o i) , 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act ;

__________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr.

B the father Protection de la jeunesse — 196011 JA1013 2019 QCCQ 15919 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 105-41-000464-181 DATE: August 6, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2018 Child -and- A -and- 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 (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child is in danger according to

section 38b)2, 38b)1 o a), 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act , because of a serious risk of neglect (parents are not providing for his basic needs), a serious risk of neglect (failing to meet the child’s basic physical needs), psychological ill-treatment and educational neglect. They are all are contested by the parents. [2] The DYP requests that the child be entrusted to a foster family until June 2020. His sister is aimed by the same procedure with different conclusions.

The parties agree to proceed by common evidence. [3] At the hearing, the parents are present, only the mother is assisted by a lawyer. The mother asks for the immediate return of her son, if not, that the delay of the placement be reduced to six months. For her daughter, she asks for a progressive return to the family environment. Regarding the father, he requests the immediate return of his son and for his daughter, he shared the same position as the mother. [4] The proof of the DYP consists of both documentary and testimonial evidence.

For the parents, some documentary evidence is deposited as well as their testimony and that of other witnesses. CONTEXT [5] The child was born on […], 2018.

An immediate protective measure was applied on February 5, 2018, entrusting the child to a foster family. [6] On February 7, 2018, a motion for extension of immediate protective measure was not granted, so the child was returned to his parents. [ 7 ] On June 4, 2018, an application for protection for the child was scheduled to proceed but this case was subject to numerous postponements mainly due to the desire of the father to be represented by a lawyer and to set a hearing in accordance with the availabilities of all the parties.

Initially, the DYP was asking that the child be entrusted to the parents. [ 8 ] On April 16, 2019, a judgment on a provisional measure was rendered entrusting the child to the parents and authorizing the DYP to have access to him and the residence when needed. [ 9 ] On April 22, 2019, a motion for an immediate protective measure was taken entrusting the child to a foster family. [ 10 ] On April 29, 2019, a motion for extension of immediate protective measure was granted, so the child remained in a foster family. [ 11 ] On May 2, 2019, a court order was rendered entrusting the child to a foster family and ordering the parents to collaborate with the DYP. • Father’s Situation [ 12 ] The father had a follow-up for anger management as well as for his impulsive-ness.

However, no reports or specific details are given as to the frequency of these meetings, the objectives or their results. Furthermore, the letter filed confirming the meetings of March 20 and April 5, 2018, is not recent and contains very little information. [ 13 ] The father insults and is disrespectful to the professionals. He often screams and swears at them. He implies that the interveners implicated in his file all have a biased opinion of him because of his criminal past as well as for threats he made against two of their colleagues.

In doing so, according to him, any person who intervenes in, shares the opinion that he is dangerous or have a negative appreciation of him. [ 14 ] He believes professionals need to adjust to him and not the opposite. He does not change his negative opinion of the DYP and does not intend to do so in the immediate future, nor to change anything in his personal situation, at least that’s what is indicated in the reports produced as well as what he mentioned in his testimony.

On his part, he never took any action to improve his relation with the professionals of the DYP. [ 15 ] Contrary to the parent's assertions throughout the testimonies rendered by the professionals, at no time, does the Court find that they have any grudges or prejudices against the father. Undeniably, they are aware of the problems of the father, and they try to get his collaboration, without success. Despite all efforts made, and the multitude of discussions or interventions attempted, nothing seems to have changed.

Obviously, they act professionally, and this, taking into account the particularities of the parents, and this since the beginning of their involvement with the family. Unquestionably, parents show rigidity and closure of mind when trying to advise or help them. [ 16 ] The father is not able to control himself and even displays it during the hearing. At times, he may adopt a somewhat questionable attitude, going as far as be arrogant at some point, and he does not always listen. Furthermore, he makes derogatory remarks to the foster mother while she is waiting in the corridor, which is totally unacceptable.

In fact, this only demonstrates and corroborates several aspects observed by the interveners in respect with the father’s attitude. [ 17 ] The father does not give priority to the follow-up sessions or visits with his daughter and leaves the mother in charge despite her limitations. He refuses any responsibility for the existing problems and he puts the blame on others. Furthermore, is he is not motivated to make changes.

[ 18 ] The father has an important trust issue which leads him to adopt a defensive attitude. The psychological assessment of the father underlines that he tends to negative expectations, distrust, and need of control, immaturity as well as his propensity to aggressiveness. Because of these issues, he deprives himself of the services he needs. When these aspects are mentioned to the father, he gets frustrated, insults the DYP and stops collaborating. • Mother’s Situation [ 19 ] The mother does not understand the DYP’s intervention but collaborates better compared to the father.

She seems more open to the interveners in the absence of the father. When he is present, her behaviour changes because he has a great influence and control over her. [ 20 ] The mother when faced with certain unforeseen situations reacts intensively and in a disproportionate manner. She panics, screams and insults, sometimes in the presence of the children. She is asked to calm down but does not comply and does not care as she says openly. In fact, she often gets angry while the children are present, which she denies. Still, the overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion.

Moreover, during her cross-examination, we can observe this, when certain questions are asked, she is clearly dissatisfied, upset and demonstrates it. [ 21 ] On several occasions, the mother admits that she finds it difficult to care for both children at the same time. • Environment [ 22 ] The physical environment of the parents is frequently unsafe and unhealthy. The child’s room is cluttered with objects just like the rest of the apartment. A strong smell of animal urine is also noticeable.

Despite several interventions about this aspect, the situation changes little or not at all. [ 23 ] During visitation, the social workers and the educators have often observed the apartment in an inadequate state. The need for the apartment to be clean, at all times is mentioned many times to the parents, but it remains very unstable. They clean sometimes, but it never lasts long and we have to remind them repeatedly, but this persists in time.

The parents do not take seriously the numerous interventions concerning that matter to correct this particular issue. [ 24 ] The event which occurred on April 26, 2019, was the last straw and could no longer be tolerated. The father states that everybody is exaggerating what they saw, but the Court does not share this opinion. The parents tend to minimize things and even less to recognize them as problems. It is part of their dynamic. The witnesses are formal about the state of the premises and their young son’s condition, that day.

The police officer claims to have removed scissors from the table, while a child was walking around without supervision and who opened the door. The situation went too far and an intervention was needed. • Child [ 25 ] The child is almost 1½ years old and was entrusted to his parents until recently, following an event that occurred on April 26, 2019, leading to the placement of the child. He is doing well in his foster family (the same that his sister’s). He gained some weight since the placement. [ 26 ] Sadly, there is a lack of collaboration from the parents regarding the child’s health issues.

Parents are asked to provide the health insurance card and the hospital card in order to hand them over to the foster family, but they decided to keep them, even though the child is not entrusted to them. [ 27 ] Since the placement, the parents benefited from supervised visits for a total of eleven. However, other contacts were planned but could not take place, three of them were cancelled by the parents on the grounds that the father works, the mother has an appointment or they have no transport to get there.

An additional visit is organized to compensate. [ 28 ] During the majority of the contacts, the parents use inappropriate language as well as being disrespectful towards the interveners in the presence of the child. Once again they are advised not to do so. It is not the first time they have been warned, many times verbally and even in writing. [ 29 ] Despite these incidents, the visits are going well and the parents bring all the things required for the child. When there is differences of opinion between the father and the interveners regarding the

schedule of visits, he gets carried away quickly. [ 30 ] A few surprise visits were done at their residence since May 2, 2019, and the condition of the house is adequate but a few things remain problematic, either objects or items of clothing are scattered in some rooms and there is also a smell of cannabis noticeable on the premises. [ 31 ] The child missed three appointments with the pediatrician. The mother claims that she did not know about them and that no one had contacted her.

However, it remains the responsibility of the parents to see to the child’s care and learn about the various medical follow-ups of the child. [ 32 ] A CLSC nurse performing prenatal follow-ups from April 18 to September 5, 2018, which represents twelve home visits, indicates that the parents are caring for the child properly. At the time, she worked with parents to meet the child’s needs. They are receptive to recommendations but on a few occasions, they maintained their position despite the content taught.

They are suspicious and prefer apply care according to their personal beliefs. [ 33 ] The interest and openness of the mother, who clearly has a positive bond and affection for her son, still allows the acquisition of certain knowledge. At first, the child does not gain weight, but the situation has since changed. Furthermore, in terms of the nasal hygiene of the child, despite the many demonstrations made with the mother as to how apply them, it must be repeated a few times.

ANALYSIS & DECISION [ 34 ] After reviewing all the evidence, it seems that since the last measure was rendered, the situation has not progressed, and has even deteriorated. All the professionals involved with the parents, all come to the same conclusion. [ 35 ] At the hearing, all the parties spend a lot of time on two particular events: April 26, 2019, visit where the youngest child is left to himself and another day, a call during which the father insults and shouts at the mother. Of course, those events are important but a lot more than that must be considered.

Many other issues occurred involving the parents. [ 36 ] The psychological assessment also points out that the father has some parental capacities, but since he does not recognize the need to improve in certain spheres of his life and to work in a team with the professionals involved, this affects his capacities. As far as the mother is concerned, she has considerable limitations regarding her intellectual abilities. Managing multiple responsibilities all at once becomes mentally too difficult for her. She can provide for her children’s basic needs when it is already learned.

When an unexpected situation arises or she has several things to manage at the same time, she has more trouble to deal with them. [ 37 ] The father does not agree with the DYP’s intervention, and the mother does not understand it. Ever since, the beginning of their involvement, the DYP established clear goals to achieve with the parents, but they were not reached.

The parents do not allow the DYP to contact the different professionals involved in their personal follow-ups. [ 38 ] Regarding the recording in which we hear the father shouting and insulting the mother, the parents claim that it only happened once and that couples can argue, again, the Court does not believe this version. Moreover, previous judgments indicate the climate of violence that is rampant in the couple and to which children are exposed.

Today we try to make it seem like it was nothing when in fact, their situation has little or not improved since then. [ 39 ] On numerous occasions, the parents refused the access of their house to the DYP’s professionals and this even when ordered by a judge. Now and then they had to convince them to go in, and they did observe that the apartment was messy.

The parents are constantly criticizing the DYP instead of changing their behaviours and improving their parental skills. [ 40 ] Even though the mother sometimes presents a more open attitude toward the workers the father withdraws himself from the services offered by the DYP. He does not acknowledge their advice or ideas. He undermines their role and the objective of the interventions. This is one of the reasons that the child’s follow-ups stagnate. The parents do not provide any information coming from other professionals.

They argue with the DYP mostly because they resent their presence. [ 41 ] The follow-up is excessively hard to complete and laborious as the majority of the interventions focus on answering to the parent’s arguments and criticisms instead of improving their parental capacities and working on their difficulties. Essentially, the overwhelming evidence shows that the parents make it impossible to reach the objectives since the placement both children. [ 42 ] Sometimes the parents mobilize to meet the demands of the DYP but are not able to maintain their efforts over time.

The situation is recurrent and persists since 2016, and it has deteriorated even more since December 2018, after the attempt of a conference settlement. It seems that the parents stopped investing themselves completely with the DYP. [ 43 ] The parents are not transparent with the DYP. Besides, the proof is filled with elements attesting to it. The most eloquent is the denial by parents of any drug consumption, while many times during the visits of the DPJ cannabis smell filled the house. In addition, several objects of consumption are found there.

At the birth of their son, the tests revealed traces of cannabis in his blood. In the last judgment, the father had agreed to undergo drug screening tests but when asked, he refuses to disclose the results. [ 44 ] The parents justify certain behaviours by claiming that interveners are disrespectful with them or use an inappropriate tone. Again, the Court does not believe this. Indeed, after hearing the testimony of the parents, several contradictions emerge from their own versions. These versions change over time or in accordance to what was said earlier.

In so doing, the Court finds their version unreliable and untrustworthy. All of these accusations are really just one way of getting away from the actual problems of not trusting anyone and whoever is trying to help them. [ 45 ] The Court has no doubt that the parents deeply love their child and take care of him properly during the visits. It is not contradicted that they are able to do it for a short time. The problem lies rather in the actions taken during the access such as having a coarse language, raising their voice, shouting insults and blaming the services, and in the presence of the child.

Moreover, even when they are advised to stop, they do not care and do not follow the instructions. This persists over time and seemingly they make no effort to change. [ 46 ] The father claims that only two interveners were adequate with him, namely Ms. [social worker 1] and Mr. [social worker 2], even though they do not draw a positive portrait of the parents and seems to have the same position as their colleagues.

Furthermore, this position of parents is surprising because in various reports, they also criticize these two persons. [ 47 ] Mister [social worker 2], the educator, mentions in his report [1] that during the visits the parents frequently use their cell phones. The father wasn’t often present during his visits, and he never asked questions about how he can be better in his role. The parents are not applying all recommendations concerning safety and health. They are not improving in maintaining cleanliness in the apartment.

All the organization regarding the child such as transportation, appointments and attending daycare was done by the interveners or the foster mother not by the parents. He concludes that the parents can take care of the child for a short period of time, but they have not proven their full potential to take care of their daughter regarding responsibility, security and safety. [ 48 ] It was implied that the interveners do not have the required training to intervene with an individual with trust issues. It is quite thoughtless to claim such a thing.

We must not forget that they are professionals who work with a clientele from various backgrounds and with different issues. According to the claim of the father it is up to the DYP to adapt to them and not the opposite. In fact, he does not need to make efforts to establish a good relation. The Court does not agree with that, an aid relationship develops in both directions and not only one way.

[ 49 ] After reading all the reports produced by the various interveners involved with this family, the same observations are made by all of them concerning the situation. The collaboration of the parents is almost nonexistent. [ 50 ] The final judgment rendered was clear as to the obligation to mobilize and collaborate with the services. Obviously, they continued to do what they wanted and made no effort to improve their situation.

The court cannot endorse the attitude of the parents who blame others for their own inaction because, they are the ones who refused the various follow-ups offered since the last order in October 2017 and even from 2016. [ 51 ] As for the request of the DYP, to sign the necessary documents regarding the child, if it is impossible to reach the parents within a reasonable delay or if they give an unjustified refusal, The Court believes that it is appropriate and in his best interest to grant it.

Previously, the parents have already communicated their willingness in cooperating with the professionals involved with the child, but they have not done so, despite their promise. Given this, we cannot trust them. Moreover, their aversion towards the DYP is of such magnitude that the child indirectly bears the consequences. [ 52 ] They criticize the DYP, for the frequent change of interveners in their file, while they are the cause of the departure of most of them, due to their behaviour but especially because of their lack of collaboration.

It is impossible to work one way, in the absence of their involvement, it is difficult to move forward. Besides, it is a concern that the parents used to receive follow-ups, which is no longer the case. [ 53 ] Although the mother participates in several activities with “Family ties” she does not take any steps to resolve her personal problems. As for the father, he stopped all follow-ups, claiming his work schedule. However, his work is recent while the situation has persisted for months, even years.

The parents do not respect the orders rendered. [ 54 ] Comparing the situation of the family in 2016 with that of 2019, we note that all the concerns raised, remain the same, namely their instability in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness of their living environment, domestic violence, the attitude of the father, his impulsivity, lack of collaboration, lack of stimulation, educational neglect, total lack of recognition of issues and refusal to participate in services offered as well as lack of transparency. Obviously, the parents are reluctant to any kind of change.

No progress was observed since the last measures ordered. [ 55 ] The child was previously entrusted to the parents who clearly did not take the necessary measures to put an end to the compromising situation. The DYP has been involved in the child’s situation for over a year and a lot of effort has been put into working with parents in relation to the needs of the child.

It is clear that, after all the interventions attempted, the situation remains unchanged, namely: the parent’s attitude, lack of collaboration, lack of self-criticism or acknowledgement of their difficulties and their eloquent lack of transparency. [ 56 ] The child needs to be with a reliable adult who is available and able to meet all his needs on a regular basis in the long term. Currently, parents cannot provide such an environment.

They will have to mobilize themselves rapidly, and six months is too short in the circumstances to achieve this goal. [ 57 ] As previously mentioned, the child needs a secure and healthy environment in order to grow adequately. During the last measure ordered, some positive changes seem to have occurred concerning, more specifically, the collaboration of the father, it did not last, as foreseen at the time.

The parent’s environment is unsuitable for the child for the time being considering the lack of progress of the parents and their poor involvement to work on their issues. [ 58 ] After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence, we can conclude that the father has a hard time to comply with anything rather preferring to accuse others. Obviously, he does not want to collaborate pretexting a multitude of reasons that the Court qualifies as excuses. The mother pretty much follows his lead.

Considering the evidence, the Court finds that the security and the development of the child is in danger according to

section 38b)2, 38b)1 o a), 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act . WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 59 ] GRANTS the application for protection reamended; [ 60 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38b)2, 38b)1 o a), 38b)1 o ii) and 38c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP; [ 62 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents take place following an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised if deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 63 ] AUTHORIZES the professional working with the child to communicate the information with each other concerning the child; [ 64 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign all the medical authorizations and social forms concerning the child, if it is impossible to reach the parents within a reasonable delay or if they give an unjustified refusal; [ 65 ] ORDERS that the parents avoid exposing the child to any kind of violence; [ 66 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered; [ 67 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random drug screening tests; [ 68 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue their follow-ups regarding their personal issues;

[ 69 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until June 30, 2020; [ 70 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: June 3, 5 and 14, 2019