2014 QCCQ 13501, 2014 QCCQ 13501

Protection de la jeunesse — 141580 2014 QCCQ 13501 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] N°: 525-41-021043-088 DATE: January 16, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2007 - and - E - and - F 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 a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 16, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision and extension of an order ren-dered October 10, 2012, entrusting the child to a confidential foster home for a period of nine months, along with other measures and a social follow-up for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child has remained in the same foster home as her sister C and she is doing well; • The mother was allowed to have unsupervised weekend contacts with the child until the end of November 2012; • On November 28, 2012, a signalement was received concerning the mother being physically abusive to the child and her siblings; • On December 6, 2012, X and Z reported that the mother uses foul language and is physically abusive to them and their siblings, except for A, when they misbehave and that it has happened since they were placed; • On December 6, 2012, Z reported that during a weekend visit, the mother grabbed B by the collar of his shirt and hit him repeatedly because he hurt Y; • Y confirmed that the mother hit B a lot after B had hit him in the stomach; • On December 6, 2012, X and Z also reporterd that the mother uses foul language when they misbehave; • B, C, D and the mother deny that the mother is physically or verbally abusive to her children; • In December 2012, X reported that the mother told her, during a visit, that she would take all her children to Saudi Arabia; • Since the evaluation of the signalement was completed, the visits between the child and the mother are supervised at Organization

A; • During a supervised visit, the mother told X that she would be coming home to her soon and not to worry; • In January 2013, the mother underwent a psychiatric assessment which did not provide any explanation for the mother’s inability to integrate the parenting strategies provided by the Director of Youth Protection over the years; • Moreover, the mother continues not to be transparent nor does she cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection. • The father has expressed being open to have the child entrusted to him after being assessed but he continues to be minimally involved in the child’s life. [ 4 ] The case of the child and that of his siblings proceeded on October 2, 3 and November 20, 2013 and January 16, 2014. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster home for a period of one year and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 6 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and consents to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection.

However, the mother denies being physically abusive towards her children. Concerning the incident that occurred on November 24, 2012, the mother testifies that Y and B were fighting and that she told B that he was older and knew better then to play roughly. She states that she disciplined them, but denies hitting them. [ 7 ] The mother testifies that she moved back to town A on October 18, 2013, in order for the child’s sibling, D, to go to school.

The mother says that she collaborates with DYP and that her apartment is adequate to receive her younger children on weekends. [ 8 ] The father ignores the majority of the facts alleged in the motion as he lives in Ottawa. The father states that he wishes for the child to be entrusted to her mother’s care and if that is not possible, that she be entrusted to him. At the hearing of October 3, 2013, the Court recommended that Mr. F address a request to the social services in town A in order to be assessed to receive the child.

However, the father did not file such a request and was absent at the hearings of November 20, 2013, and January 16, 2014. [ 9 ] Counsel for the child, admitted on behalf of X, that she reported that her mother is physically abusive to her and her siblings when they misbehave, except for A. X also reported that the mother uses foul language when they misbehave. Me Du Sablon considers that a long term plan must be established for the child if she is not returned to her mother’s care. [ 10 ] The mother's psychiatric evaluation was conducted by Dr.

Michel Gil, psychiatrist, in January 2013. [ 11 ] The psychiatrist mentions that the mother arrived on time, that orientation and sensorial elements are preserved and that no disassociative elements were observed . The mother displays a certain distractibility, compatible with her diagnosis of ADHD. The mother presents no suicidal ideations or ideas of violence. However, social and practical judgement seems affected by some immaturity and self- criticism is partial. The mother has had seven children and many voluntary termination of pregnancies with a number of fathers.

She basically raised her children on her own. [ 12 ] The psychiatrist established the following diagnosis: Axe I : Trouble déficitaire de l’attention avec hyperactivité vraisemblablement responsable d’une

partie de son hyperactivité et quelques difficultés organisationnelles (retards, un certain éparpillement et un certain degré d’impulsivité); on retrouve également des antécédents de dyslexie. Axe II : au niveau de la personnalité, on retrouve quelques traits de personnalité du groupe B avec expression émotionnelle intense, quelques aspects carentiels et impulsivité. Axe III : non contributif. Axe IV : . monoparentalité, sept enfants; . placement récent des enfants; . interactions difficiles avec les services de protection de la jeunesse; . réticence historique pour les traitements médicaux. Axe V : ÉGF à 70.

[ 13 ] The psychiatrist concludes that the mother does not present any pathologies that could justify a reference or entrustment to a specialised setting. He recommends that a medication be tried for her ADHD, in order to increase her efficiency and enhance her organisational skills. However, the mother refuses to take medication and this type of treatment would not compensate for all of her emotional and relationship difficulties. [ 14 ] The Court heard a number of witnesses during the four days of hearing.

The Court also read the reports and addendums filed by the Director of Youth Protection as proof of the child’s situation. [ 15 ] On October 10, 2012, the Court declared the security and development of the child still compromised under

section 38 b) 1), neglect, and compromised under e) 1), physical abuse, of the Youth Protection Act . A new signalement was received on November 28, 2012, concerning an incident that would have occurred on November 24, 2012, at the mother’s home. [ 16 ] The signalement was retained under

section 38 e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act for X, Z and B and under

section 38 e) 2) of the Youth Protection Act for C. Z and X both reported clearly to the Youth worker that their mother hits them and their siblings and uses foul language when they misbehave. [ 17 ] X reported that her mother hits her with an open hand on her cheek and on her mouth. The child said that she has seen her mother hit her siblings, except for A. She confirmed these statements to her lawyer. [ 18 ] Z reported that his mother hits him with an open hand on his arms, back and bum and with a closed fist on the back of his head and the back of his neck.

The child said that he has seen his mother hit his siblings, except for A. [ 19 ] Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, Z stated that Y and B were fighting and that his mother grabbed B by the collar and hit him repeatedly. Z says he remembers this incident as B cried because he was wearing his favourite shirt, which was ripped. [ 20 ] Z confirmed to his lawyer that the mother is physically abusive to him and his siblings when they misbehave, except for A.

He also confirmed to his lawyer the incident whereby B was hit repeatedly by the mother. [ 21 ] Y confirmed to the Youth worker on December 18, 2012, and to his lawyer that the mother hit B repeatedly on November 24, 2012, after they had been fighting. [ 22 ] B denied that his mother uses physical discipline towards him or his siblings. Concerning the incident of November 24, 2012, he states that he was play-fighting with Y. His mother got upset because he accidentally hurt his brother.

His mother yelled and gave him a time-out. [ 23 ] D and C denied that their mother is physically or verbally abusive to them or their siblings. [ 24 ] The mother denied using physical discipline, but acknowledged that she uses foul language around the children, although she says it is never directed at them. [ 25 ] The Court finds from the evidence, that the child was victim of physical abuse by her mother. [ 26 ] The evidence reveals that the mother’s situation has changed very little since the last Court order, October 10, 2012.

The family has received services from DYP since 2008 and concerns have been regarding neglect, hygiene issues, substance abuse, school attendance, physical abuse and the mother’s instability. Although the mother has said, on numerous occasions, that she is willing to collaborate with DYP, she continues to miss meetings with the youth workers and not to collaborate in a transparent manner. [ 27 ] The mother is currently living in town B in a four and half room apartment with her spouse, G, and her mother. She is currently living on welfare and has not worked since March 2013 when she quit her job at Company A.

The mother states that she is currently looking for employment and wants to complete her hotel reception program. [ 28 ] The evidence reveals that the parents are not in a position to answer to their daughter needs at this time. Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be maintained in foster care for a period of one year. However, the situation of X’s current foster home must be reviewed. [ 29 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child under

section 38 b) 1) and e) 1) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to a confidential foster home for a period of one year; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that DYP decide within six months if it is in the child’s best interest to be maintained in the foster home where she currently is; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that if C integrates a foster home, that X be in the same foster home as her sister; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to sign all consents pertaining to the child for the purpose of education, assessments, therapeutic intervention, medical and dental services, in the event that the parents cannot be reached within a reasonable delay;

[ 37 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by her situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from all form of physical or verbal violence towards the child, including threats of physical harm; [ 39 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from denigrating the father and making any derogatory comments about the father to the child; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother avail herself of support and counselling available through her local CLSC; [ 41 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the Director be authorized to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family; [ 43 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of one year; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 45 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed April 25, 2014 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Claudine Du Sablon Counsel for the child Me Richard Benoit Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: October 2 and 3, 2013, November 20, 2013, and January 16, 2014