2013 QCCQ 12120, 2013 QCCQ 12120

Protection de la jeunesse — 134097 2013 QCCQ 12120 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] Youth Court Division N°: 525-41-009309-006 Date: April 22, 2013 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...] 1998 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of […] Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE, Mise-en-cause JUDGMENT

Section 95-95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.P-34.1) JD2620 WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court was presented with a motion for an extension of an order rendered by the honourable André Saint-Cyr, on September 24, 2001, whereby the now fifteen year-old adolescent, X , was entrusted to a foster family with aid, counsel and assistance until January 29, 2012. [ 2 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion are as follows: 3.1. the child has remained in the care of C; 3.2.

C is a specialized foster home, provided by Services A ; 3.3. the child's situation has stabilized in the foster home for many years; 3.4. the mother continues to minimize her mental health issues; 3.5. the mother stopped taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medication in 2008 against medical advice; 3.6. the mother is still unable to accept the close relationship between the child and Ms. C; 3.7. the mother has not made any progress in her mental health and in appropriately responding to the child's needs;

3.8. the father barely communicates with the child during any office visits and he makes limited conversation with him during telephone contacts; 3.9. the child has monthly visits with his parents; 3.10. the parents have found it difficult organizing a plan around visitations that are practical to the needs of the child (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 3 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the adolescent remain entrusted to a foster family, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, until he reaches the age of majority, on […] , 2016. [ 4 ] Both parents, assisted by Me Macri, admitted most of the alleged facts and consented to the adolescent's continued placement.

However, they would like to have more frequent, longer visits with their son, including visits at their home. [ 5 ] The adolescent, assisted by Me Ayoub, made no admissions. He consented to remain entrusted to his foster family and his position wavered over time regarding the nature and frequency of the contacts he would like to have with his parents. [ 6 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated November 18 th , 2011; D-2: Consultation psychiatrique, prepared by Dr.

Jean-Pierre Berthiaume, dated March 21 st , 2011 (filed under s. 294.1 C.p.c.); D-3: Child's birth certificate (filed on April 22, 2013); D-4: Addendum to Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 2], dated January 6 th , 2012; D-5: Addendum 2 to Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated April 13 th , 2012; D-6: Addendum 3 to Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated August 31 st , 2012; D-7: Addendum 4, prepared by [Social Worker 3], dated December 3 rd , 2012. [ 7 ] In

summary, the adolescent as well as his older brother have remained in the same foster home since the last court order in 2001. [ 8 ] For over a decade, the foster mother, C, has fulfilled the children's daily needs.

There is no basis upon which to question her ability and commitment to continue to provide for the adolescent's considerable needs, with the assistance of special services provided by the Centre A . [ 9 ] The parents' main grievances center around their visits with their son which are significantly affected by the intense hostility between the parents and the foster family. [ 10 ] As summarized in the Court Report dated November 18, 2011: Throughout the history of X placement, Ms. C has faced tremendous opposition from B , who refuses to accept her significance within X life.

X is an emotionally and intellectually vulnerable child, who requires great sensitivity around his needs. [1] [ 11 ] During the period covered by the above report, the adolescent was scheduled to have hour-long monthly visits with his parents. It was agreed with the worker at the time that the parents could suggest the location of the visits provided the suggestions were practical for the children and foster parent [2] . [ 12 ] On August 23, 2011, a visit took place at a restaurant in City A .

However, subsequent visits were cancelled for several reasons, including the parents' serious marital problems at the time. [ 13 ] As stated in the Addendum to the Court Report, a visit also took place at a restaurant on November 8, 2011 and another on December 21, 2011. [ 14 ] Unfortunately, a conflict between the worker and the mother caused a very uncomfortable scene: A then began to swear loudly and she stood up from her table and began to shout at this worker.

This worker attempted to encourage X and his brother to quickly finish their meals but A continued to swear loudly at this worker and then at the foster mother. At this point this worker and the foster mother agreed to end the visit and began to prepare the children to leave. However, A anger intensified and she continued to openly swear at this worker in the public restaurant. This worker attempted to mediate with the mother but she was physically shaking with rage.

Both X and his brother were visibly shaken by this behaviour and they froze during the experience. [3] [ 15 ] Following this incident, it was decided that "visits should no longer take place in the community" [4] . [ 16 ] Another similar outburst occurred during a supervised visit on April 2, 2012 [5] . [ 17 ] In order to explore possible ways is which visits between the adolescent and his parents could be improved, interim measures were ordered by the Court on April 20, 2012.

More specifically, the parents undertook to provide the Director of Youth Protection with the names of possible resources to supervise their visits with their son.

[ 18 ] However, very shortly thereafter: A stated that she would prefer to have undersigned continue to supervise the visits as she has no one to present to the DYP who could supervise the visits [6] (emphasis added). [ 19 ] Consequently visits continued to be supervised at [Center A] in a structured setting and the adolescent often showed signs of boredom and impatience. [ 20 ] On September 11, 2012, the Court again ordered interim measures in order to give effect to the adolescent's suggestion that the parents attend one of his sporting activities with the supervision of a third party approved by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 21 ] Unfortunately, this second attempt to find ways in which to make contacts between the parents and their son more meaningful and satisfying also proved unsuccessful. [ 22 ] The evidence adduced at the hearing very clearly establishes that any form of contact between the biological parents and the foster family presents great potential for conflict and should be avoided entirely. [ 23 ] There is no doubt that the mother's rigidity and impulsiveness contributes to the conflicts.

But it is also clear that the foster family bears some of the responsibility. [ 24 ] In fact, the credible testimony of D , who was approved by the Director of Youth Protection to supervise the visits, established that many of the criticisms of the mother's behavior, reported to the worker by the foster family, proved to be totally unfounded. [ 25 ] However, regardless of the parents' or the foster family's shortcomings, what clearly transpires from the evidence is that the adolescent does not feel comfortable alone in his parents' presence.

He testified that he is "too afraid" to be alone with them, even when his mother is not yelling or screaming because he is fearful that she may do so.

He also does not feel it would be good to go to his biological parents' home. [ 26 ] In addition, the adolescent clearly stated that his mother embarrassed him in front of his friends. [ 27 ] On the other hand, he claims he is happy to see his father, and happy to see his mother when she doesn't yell. [ 28 ] Under the circumstances, the need for supervision during the visits is absolutely necessary to ensure that the adolescent feels comfortable and is not subjected to any aggressive outbursts or inappropriate behavior. [ 29 ] The adolescent also needs to be shielded from any potential conflict between his parents and foster family. [ 30 ] Given the tension and hostility between the parents and the foster family, it is not in the adolescent's interest to be placed in situations where his parents are brought into contact with his foster family's community in his presence. [ 31 ] However, it is essential that contacts between the adolescent and his parents be maintained so that he may have a very concrete sense of their steadfast love for him, despite their limitations.

It will be especially important to make the visits as regular and predictable as possible. [ 32 ] As demonstrated by the adolescent's reactions, attempts at changing the modalities of the visits only resulted in his expressing that he no longer wished to see his mother at all. [ 33 ] Attempting to change or increase the contacts between the adolescent and his parents has unfortunately proved detrimental to their relationship. [ 34 ] The parents sadly must accept that their need and desire for increased contacts with their son, under the circumstances, does not have the desired effect of fostering a stronger, deeper bond between them. [ 35 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 36 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent, X , remain compromised under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE ADOLESCENT'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 38 ] ORDERS that the adolescent remain entrusted to a foster family under the auspices of A Rehabilitation Program until his age of majority, on […], 2014; [ 39 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the foster family will remain that of Ms.

C; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision, taking into account the adolescent's wishes; [ 41 ] ORDERS that contacts be maintained minimally at their current frequency of once per month; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts take place preferably outside the offices of A, whenever the situation allows, in order to foster more pleasant visits for the adolescent;

[ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that visits between the adolescent and his parents occur with his brother, following the same schedule; [ 44 ] ORDERS that every effort be made to prevent any contact between the foster family and the biological parents in the adolescent's presence; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the adolescent continue to receive services from A Rehabilitation Program; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for […] a provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 48 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer, if deemed necessary; [ 49 ] THE WHOLE until the adolescent reaches the age of majority, on […] 2016.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Camille Champeval / AC7059 Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Marie-Josée Ayoub / AA00B3 Attorney for the adolescent Me Umberto Macri / AW5381 Attorney for the parents TD/vl