2019 QCCQ 14696, 2019 QCCQ 14696

Protection de la jeunesse — 1911422 2019 QCCQ 14696 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005374-171 DATE: October 7, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2017 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A Parent B Intervening party ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On October 3, 2017, the Court renders a one-year protection order as regards the child X, in relation to the serious risk of neglect stemming from his mother’s unstable lifestyle. Amid the measures put in place, the Court entrusts the child to his maternal aunt, Ms.

B. [ 2 ] Alleging that the situation of endangerment not only remains active but that, furthermore, the child is also at risk in his aunt’s environment, the Director of Youth Protection seeks his transfer to a foster family, in view of eventually stabilizing him on a permanent basis. [ 3 ] The continued situation of endangerment is uncontested, as are the protective measures recommended by the Director, to the exception of the child’s placement in foster care. [ 4 ] The child’s mother’s position evolves during the hearing.

While initially contesting her son’s transfer to a foster family, she testifies to being torn between the significance of her son’s bond with his aunt and her apprehensions that this environment isn’t meeting his developmental needs.

She finally leaves the appreciation of her son’s situation to the Court. [ 5 ] While accepting the continued implication of social services, X’s aunt, granted intervenor status, disagrees with X being withdrawn from her care. [ 6 ] After considering the evidence, X’s attorney, working under a legal mandate, submits that it is premature to consider his removal from his present environment.

She suggests that specific measures be put in place to ensure that her client receive follow-ups as concerns his developmental and health issues and that the Director continues to accompany the aunt in responding to these. [ 7 ] The context [ 8 ] The parties jointly admit a continued situation of endangerment, which is an accurate reflection of the evidence. [ 9 ] X’s mother still struggles with her various personal issues and admits to not having the intention nor the capacity to assume a parental role towards her son. Such is also the case for her other children.

This being the case, she remains cooperative and sensitive to his well-being. [ 10 ] The contentious issue surrounds the determination of X’s needs and whether his present environment is able to respond to these. As such, the Court underlines the context of X’s situation.

[ 11 ] X resides with his maternal aunt since his birth, his mother indicating her plan that he eventually be adopted by her. It is pertinent to note that X’s older sister Y is also under the care of their maternal aunt. [ 12 ] As concerns X, the mother relegates her parental responsibilities to his maternal aunt. She continues to have visitation and be a part of his life, but is identified as his aunt. [ 13 ] Repeatedly, the Director declares preoccupations in relation to X’s development and the ability of his alternate environment to respond to his various needs.

Efforts are made to accompany the aunt and sensitize her to X’s issues. [ 14 ] On March 13, 2019, the parties submit a joint position to the Court, recognizing the continued situation of endangerment while agreeing that the determination of the final measures, namely on the contentious issue of the environment in which he will continue to evolve, be continued to a later date. [ 15 ] While maintaining the status quo of the measures, the parties recognize the fragility of the situation and the need to progress rapidly as regards the response to his needs.

The Court endorses this position while confirming the objectives of the interim measures. [ 16 ] Concurrently, the Court renders a decision as concerns X’s sister Y, also entrusted in the same environment. After evaluating the evidence and in view of the parties’ agreement, the Court prolongs protective measures while entrusting the child to another family member. [ 17 ] The Court’s cites its determinations at that time for Y as pertinent to the present evaluation: [9] Y attends daycare, as does her younger brother.

The daycare observes repeated and sustained elements of neglect, which are not addressed properly, despite interventions on their part (health, basic needs, clothing and hygiene). Similar issues are observed by the caseworkers. [10] The maternal aunt mostly refuses services or accompaniment, stating that she doesn’t see any need for such. [11] Although the maternal aunt is devoted to the children, ongoing issues as to her parental capacities are the subject of concern and interventions by the Director.

More specifically, the evidence shows the following: • In the last 18 months, the family has moved 5 times; • The maternal aunt has missed important appointments with the psycho educator in relation to the child’s development; • The children’s basic needs go regularly unanswered (hygiene, clothing, affection, health) and this, despite reminders; • The physical premises are often unsanitary and neglected; • Supervision and structure are inconsistent in the family environment; • Despite services being put in place, little durable change is observed; [12] The maternal aunt struggles with the care of four young children.

This results in a general disorganization which resounds on Y. It cannot be discounted that her developmental delays stem, at least in part, from the deficient care she receives in her alternate environment. [13] For some time, the conditions are in place justifying that Y be stabilized on a long term basis, but this process has been suspended with the expectations that her alternate family milieu make the necessary changes to ensure her needs. The evidence now demonstrates that such is no longer a viable solution for Y.

As such, the parties agree that a new plan needs to be put in place. [ 18 ] Since her transfer to another alternate family environment, Y makes significant improvements in her functioning and is rapidly recuperating her developmental delays. [ 19 ] The final hearing for X occurs some six months later.

After evaluating the evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that X’s situation remains mostly unchanged, moreover, that his developmental issues remain significant and the response to his needs inconsistent. [ 20 ] The Court underlines certain proven elements. [ 21 ] X attends daycare since October 2018 and the observations are the following: • He presents developmental delays as concerns his motor, social and language skills; • His hygiene and clothing are often inadequate; • On a regular basis, it is necessary to request, sometimes repeatedly, that his aunt furnish him appropriate clothing.

Although the situations are usually resolved, there is almost always a significant delay in doing so; • He has little structure and can be oppositional; • He has recurrent health issues (running nose, infections); [ 22 ] While recognizing X’s delays, his aunt believes that such is related to a possible fetal alcohol syndrome. She doesn’t recognize contributing factors stemming from her environment or the standard of care he receives.

[ 23 ] In her testimony, X’s aunt gives various explanations as to the numerous issues brought forth concerning his care, hygiene and development. These explanations only serve to further underscore the organisational issues the family faces. [ 24 ] The Court relates but one example, which is the reflection of such and the overall evidence. [ 25 ] During consecutive days (for almost a week), X presents himself to daycare with a coat which is soiled with food residue down its front (evidence D-22).

His aunt explains that she was aware of such and that the coat was repeatedly put in the wash, but that her partner was using it anyways when getting X ready in the morning, since no other coat was available. [ 26 ] The services of an educator accompany X’s caregivers (aunt and her partner). Aid and counsel are offered as to stimulation, routine and a healthy environment.

Although the aunt collaborates, the family situation remains mostly chaotic and improvements are not maintained in time. [ 27 ] The educator’s observations concur with those of the daycare. [ 28 ] The collaboration of the Aunt’s milieu is also an issue brought forth by the Director. The cleanliness of the environment shifts depending on the planned or unplanned nature of the visit.

The educator’s suggestions as to offering X stimulation, creating a stable routine and bonding, are applied inconsistently. [ 29 ] X’s motor, socio-affective and cognitive development are now presently situated in the 8 to 12 months range. He mostly eats with his fingers and has a limited vocabulary. [ 30 ] He also exhibits anxious behaviours which intensify over time. His nail biting results in repeated finger infections. He also starts biting himself on the body when confronted with frustrations.

Although his aunt takes certain steps to respond to this distress, she fails to be proactive and consistent. [ 31 ] Since the summer, X has changed group at his daycare and bonds with his educator. He is functioning better and accepting the structure in place. Such is not the situation in his family unit, where there is still little improvement. [ 32 ] The caregivers recognize and understand their need to help to parent X and meet his developmental needs.

In the last months, they show more openness and have improved certain skills. [ 33 ] X awaits various evaluations as concerns his development (audiologist, etc.) His caregivers state their intention to follow through on these. [ 34 ] Analysis and decision [ 35 ] X’s delays require that he receive attentive and consistent stimulation. Such is also the case for the other issues which remain a concern as to his care and environment. [ 36 ] Although external issues could be contributive, X’s difficulties are, at least partially, a result of his environment and the standard of care he receives.

His sister Y’s progress since her removal is testament to this. [ 37 ] Notwithstanding the source of his developmental problems, the evidence establishes that these require immediate and dedicated attention. If such is not the case, his delays will continue to overwhelm his ability to evolve positively in the different spheres of his life. [ 38 ] The Director clearly identifies its expectations to X’s aunt although services are in place and objectives clearly established, she continues to struggle with her role.

Although some improvements are noted, these are insufficient to meet X’s increasing delays. [ 39 ] X’s aunt offers him the only environment he has known and the Court considers this fact in its appreciation of his best interests and the objectives of the law. [ 40 ] Up until now, numerous efforts have been made to stabilize his situation and preserve the bonds in place in order to promote his remaining.

Such has not been sufficient to ensure that he develops adequately. [ 41 ] In view of the evidence to the effect that this situation remains ongoing despite the Director’s involvement since his birth, the Court is convinced that the needed changes cannot be operated in his present circumstances. His aunt, although well-intentioned, has reached a plateau as to her abilities and availability to address X’s now pressing developmental issues. [ 42 ] Considering that X’s mother is unlikely to be able to resume his care, a long-term vision is dictated.

This being the Court’s determination, X’s requires his transfer into another milieu better equipped to respond to his needs. As such, the Court endorses the Director’s recommendations as being in X’s best interests.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of a Court decision; [ 44 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the child still in danger; [ 45 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on October 3, 2017; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the child to a foster family chosen by Director of Youth Protection A; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of

a third party chosen by the Director; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his maternal aunt Mrs.

B be following agreement between the parties; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the mothers report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or her child's regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the mother and his aunt participate actively in the measures order; [ 52 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 1 year; [ 53 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Anne-Catherine Bujold Attorney for the Applicant Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for B Me Stéphanie Castagnier Attorney for the child Dates of hearing: May 13, 2019 (judgment on endangerment), October 2 and 7, 2019 (judgement on applicable measures) Date of signature: December 9, 2019