2013 QCCQ 12931, 2013 QCCQ 12931

Protection de la jeunesse — 133570 2013 QCCQ 12931 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-024490-112 525-41-024489-114 DATE: August 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Centres Applicant - and - X Born on [...] , 2007 - and - Y Born on [...] , 2008 - and - A - and - B Respondents JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for decision rendered verbally at the hearing of August 5, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension by the Director of Youth Protection of orders rendered July 20, 2012, entrusting the children to the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of one year with other supporting measures.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The children remained under the care of the maternal grandparents; • The children are developing well under the care of the grandparents; • It was not possible for the mother to live at the grandparents home since September 2012; • The mother maintains regular contacts and visits with the children; • The mother has not worked on the issues that have brought the Director of Youth Protection in the children’s life; • The mother did not enter into therapy and does not acknowledge responsibility; • The mother cannot resume care of the children; • The father has not contacted the youth protection worker and has not had any contacts with the children. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children remain in the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of eight months.

During this period, the Director of Youth Protection intends to file motions for tutorship.

[ 5 ] The father is not present at the hearing and the Director of Youth Protection was unable to serve him with a copy of the motions as he is of address unknown. Therefore, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 6 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and consents to the recommended measures. The mother has her own apartment since September 2012. She receives the children at her home once a week and wishes to receive them for overnight visits.

The mother says that she would agree for the grandmother to be appointed tutor of the children. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in their best interest. [ 8 ] The psychological evaluation of the mother was conducted by Niki Saros, psychologist, and is dated December 24, 2012. The psychologist observed that the mother was unable to respect scheduled appointments, which suggest problems with reliability and organization.

Furthermore, the mother’s capacity to show insight appears quite limited, given that she blames others for her family circumstances. [ 9 ] The tests administered conveyed an absence of depression or emotional distress. However, her significantly low score on the feeling scale maybe associated with alexithymia, which is a problem with emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relationships. According to the psychologist, this may account for her difficulty to benefit from intervention by DYP and to modify her behaviour. [ 10 ] The psychologist concludes as follow: Ms.

A is a 25-year-old woman who appears to demonstrate problems with organization and reliability, planning ahead and following tasks through to completion. In her account of her present situation, Ms. A did not identify personal areas in need of improvement. Though her children have been entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents for two years, Ms. A rigidly adheres to her perception that the DYP is deliberately trying to prevent her from having her children without cause. […] Forming a therapeutic alliance with Ms.

A will remain challenging as she characteristically opposes information that is contrary to her opinion. Ms. A clearly expressed that she is not interested in seeking counselling to address parenting problems or to strengthen her personal resources. While the recommendations proposed by the DYP are reasonable (e.g. treatment program for violence and refraining from substance use), Ms. A does not acknowledge having problems in these areas.

Therefore, the prognosis for benefiting from intervention is guarded. [ 11 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1] , and read the Court reports filed by the Director as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals that the children are doing well in the care of their maternal grandparents. The children, however, do have a solid attachment to their mother.

Although, the mother is not in a position to answer to the children’s needs on a daily basis, she is committed to remaining involved in their lives. [ 12 ] As for the father, he has had no contact with the children over the last year. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be maintained in their maternal grandparents care for a period of eight months. [ 14 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 15 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 17 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their maternal grandparents for a period of eight months; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection concerning modalities and that the frequency be agreed upon between the parties; [ 20 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother certain attributes of parental authority and ORDERS that Ms.

C be authorized to sign all needed consents pertaining to the children, including obtaining the passports and for travelling purposes; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the Director of Youth Protection inform the mother of all medical needs and appointments for the children; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be suspended; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother abstain from all mood altering substances during the visits with the children; [ 24 ] ORDERS the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, to meet with the youth workers upon request and to inform the youth workers of any significant changes in her situation, including any change of coordinates; [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of eight months; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y , to the Director of Youth Protection of A Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out;

[ 27 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer. Signed August 9, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Myriam De Blois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Dominique Trahan Counsel for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: August 5, 2013