2012 QCCQ 9486, 2012 QCCQ 9486

Protection de la jeunesse — 121327 2012 QCCQ 9486 JR 1585 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-006798-120 DATE : May 7 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE ROY ______________________________________________________________________ [Social Worker], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of youth protection of le Centre jeunesse A, Petitioner -and- x, born on […], 2000 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The child lives with his father and his new spouse, Ms. C. The parents are separated since May 2003. The child has irregular contacts with his mother since the separation. Ms. C has been involved with the children since 2006. [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection (the Director) petitions the Court with a motion for protection, according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child.

[ 3 ] The hearing of this motion is held jointly with the motions for protection, according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act, in the matter of the children Y , born on […], 2003 and Z , born on […], 2002. [ 4 ] Mainly, the Director submits that the father and his spouse use unreasonable disciplinary methods with the child.

He also alleges that the child is subject to denigration, emotional rejection and excessive control on the part of the father and his spouse and that he is exposed to domestic violence. [ 5 ] The Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster care family and that the contacts with the parents be supervised by the Director for a period of eight months with a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The mother, the father and the child admit some of the facts alleged in the motion, as noted in the minutes of the Court.

They are in agreement with the measures recommended by the Director. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the intervention of the Director starts when he is informed that on November 8 th , 2011, the child X tells his father and spouse that the school photographs are supposed to be taken that day. They then get mad at him because he forgot to give them the paper sent by the school with the information. The father's spouse takes the child by the throat and the father does the same thing after. [ 8 ] Following the incident, the Director meets with the children.

They all confirm the violence and the military-like discipline at the house which includes: • The children must do copies of several pages as consequences at home.

Y has calluses on her fingers because she had too many copies to write; • The children fear the father and spouse's reactions when they have a bad day at school; • The children say that the father and his spouse are always mad at them; • The children are often left outside of the house for several hours, after school or during the weekends; • The children have to go to bed without supper when they have consequences; • The children have to do their own lunches, however the fridge is often empty.

Consequently they are hungry at school; [ 9 ] In school, the teachers observe that the children often wears dirty clothes. The children explain that they have to do their own laundry and that they sometimes forget . [ 10 ] They also observe that X is very anxious and shows opposition, defiance and argues at time. Z cries a lot when he does not do well because he is afraid of the father's reaction.

He also has trouble adapting to the school social environment. [ 11 ] On February 1 st , 2012, the Court entrusts provisionally the children to the maternal grandparents. [ 12 ] Upon their arrival at the maternal grandparent's home, the children show behaviours that require a lot of attention and intervention from the part of the adults. [ 13 ] The maternal grandparents feel exhausted, more particularly because X does a lot of tantrums and is rapidly out of control.

Consequently, they inform the Director that they are no longer available to take the responsibility of the children. [ 14 ] On March 23 rd , 2012, the Director entrusts the child X to a foster care family under immediate protective measures.

On that day, he does not want to go back to his maternal grandparents after school and he is having a fit. [ 15 ] On March 26 th , 2012, the Court orders the provisional compulsory foster care of the child X in a foster care family. [ 16 ] On March 30 th , 2012, the Court orders the provisional compulsory foster care of the children Y and Z in a foster care family. [ 17 ] Since 2003, there have been three referrals concerning the family for situations concerning physical and psychological violence.

Voluntary measures were signed with the Director on three occasions. [ 18 ] The family received services in the past from the CSSS and the Director however, the situation remains the same. [ 19 ] In 2010, the father and his spouse also received short follow-up from a psychologist after an evaluation. The father was also offered therapy for his violence at "Après-Coup", however he refused. [ 20 ] The children were met by a psychologist in March 2010. The

summary of the three evaluations are still relevant to the present situation: «… With little hope for change in his home environment, and lacking control of his environment for safety and security X began to exhibit behavioural and emotional problems. He started lying to his parents and began stealing. He bullied and continues to be rejecting and physically aggressive towards his brother.

He is described as inattentive, lacks concentration and disorganization at home and in school, and he is doing poorly in his academic subjects. His traumatic experiences continue to affect him, he has recurrent nightmares, feels emotionally detached, anxious, often feels like crying, often angry, and depressed. These internalized behaviours interfere with the development of an inner model of secure attachment to his parents, and undermine his own psychological, emotional and social development. [1] …» [ 21 ] It took a while before the father requested visits after the placement of the children.

He said he needed time off before he would renew contacts. However, since March 2012, the father has regular contacts with the children under the supervision of the Director. [ 22 ] The visits are going good and the children find the father to be very nice with them. However, they have various reactions following the visits. [ 23 ] On April 28 th and May 5 th , 2012, the father and his spouse consulted a therapy center for an assessment of their current family situation. They are starting a therapy as a couple and wish to include the children in the process. The therapy should last one year.

Both the father and her spouse wish to take care of their own difficulties. [ 24 ] The mother has been absent from the children's life for many years. She has herself a difficult past. As a young adult, she was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, as a result of an attachment disorder as a child. [ 25 ] When the children were entrusted to the maternal grandparents, she started to see them more regularly. The children express mixed feelings about this situation.

They have a lot of questions for their mother and try to understand why she abandoned them for so many years. [ 26 ] At the hearing, the mother expresses that she wants to be part of the children's life. Since their placement in foster care, she sees them every second weekend. She explains that she understands that there is a lot of catching-up to do and how important it is for her to maintain regular contacts with her children. [ 27 ] The three children wish to go back to their home.

However, they understand that the father and his spouse need to work on their difficulties first. [ 28 ] The situation exposed during the audition favours that the child be entrusted to a foster care family. It seems that despite all the services the father and her spouse received in the past, they have not changed their upbringing methods. [ 29 ] Since they recognize their difficulties, they now have to maintain their motivation to change and work them difficulties in order for the children to reintegrate their home. [ 30 ] As for the mother, she has abandoned her children for many years.

Even though her intentions are good, the Director needs to keep a close eye on the situation to avoid any other rejection. [ 31 ] The Court considers that the inclusion of the children in the family therapy should be encouraged and would be beneficial for the whole family. [ 32 ] Considering all the facts that took place in the children's life and their need for stability and proper supervision. [ 33 ] Considering that child's security and development are in danger. [ 34 ] FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are in danger under

Section 38 e) 1° and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of eight months ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family for a period of one year ; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the contact between the child and his parents be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES that supervision be suspended upon mutual agreement of the parties; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his needs; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures ordered, more specifically that they participate to the Intervention Plan of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents inform the Director of Youth Protection about their own personal therapy; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the maternal grandparents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participates to the therapy with his father and his spouse; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures; ________________________________ Mélanie Roy, J.C.Q. M e François Arteau-Gauthier Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Jean-Pierre Gaudreau Lawyer for the child M e Patrick Cormier Lawyer for the father