2019 QCCQ 16734, 2019 QCCQ 16734

Protection de la jeunesse — 195326 2019 QCCQ 16734 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-026974-139 DATE : June 27, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2011 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to revise and to extend the order rendered on November 29, 2016, maintaining the entrustment of the child to a confidential foster home for nine months along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures.

The order further prohibits contact between the parents and the child. [ 2 ] At the time of the filing of the motion, the Director alleged that the mother had made serious efforts towards stabilizing her lifestyle and dealing with her drug issues although relapses remained a concern.

Since then, the Director argues that the mother has regressed significantly. [ 3 ] Aside from one appearance in court over the past two years, the father plays no role in his daughter’s life and does not participate in the intervention. [ 4 ] The Director proposes to maintain the child in her current confidential foster home until her majority with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 5 ] On the issue of contact, the Director proposes to maintain the prohibition of contact with the father.

For the mother, the applicant submits that the suspension should remain in force until the mother has demonstrated stability in her personal situation and until the child is deemed sufficiently emotionally stable by her treating professionals, taking into account her wishes on the matter. [ 6 ] The mother concedes the state of endangerment and agrees with the continued placement of the child until her majority.

She contests the following measures: - The withdrawal of the exercise of her parental attributes; - The suspension of indirect contact with the child; - The Director’s authority to determine if and when the suspension of contact should be lifted; [ 7 ] The attorney for the child acknowledges that a suspension of contact is required at this time but expresses concern regarding

the duration. Considering the length of the order to be rendered, she asks the Court to include a recommendation that the Director return to court if contact is not reinstated after a specified period of time. The Context [ 8 ] The prohibition of contact ordered in 2016 served two objectives, namely, to determine: - Whether the mother was capable of maintaining the progress that she had recently demonstrated; - Whether the child’s state would be conducive to reinstating contact at the end of the nine months. [ 9 ] Almost two years have passed since the filing of the Director’s application.

The complex considerations in dealing with the issue of contact between the child and her mother have required multiple assessments and expert testimony. The evolution of the situation over this period of time has also required continual updates, leading to further adjustments by the parties. [ 10 ] Over this period of time, indirect contact between the mother and the child was attempted, with limited success.

Simultaneously, the child went through alternating periods of stability and disorganization. [ 11 ] The intervention on this issue can be summarized as follows: [ 12 ] At the start of the hearing in January 2018, the child was progressing extremely well both academically and behaviourally. Considering the mother’s progress regarding her personal issues, the Court authorized the start of indirect contact through pictures, letters, gifts and so forth.

The plan was to provide the child with a narrative through a life book that would provide her with information and explanations about her history. [ 13 ] In March of 2018, before the start of the contacts, the child’s foster sister returned home permanently and unexpectedly.

The child was extremely distressed by this turn of events and her behaviour consequently deteriorated. [ 14 ] Considering the child’s state of vulnerability, her treating psychologist suspended the implementation of the narrative. [ 15 ] After a relative period of stability, work on the life book began and a picture of the child as a baby with her mother was given to her to put in the book. Although her initial reaction appeared encouraging, the child’s behaviour regressed in the weeks that followed.

Furthermore, she began expressing fear that her “tummy mummy” would take her away. [ 16 ] In response to the child’s concerns, the mother prepared a letter seeking to reassure her that she would remain permanently in her foster family.

At the following hearing date, the Court ordered that the letter be provided to the child in the presence of her treating psychiatrist and that any further indirect contact would be subject to the psychiatrist’s approval. [ 17 ] At the following date, the evidence demonstrated that the child had somewhat stabilized prior to receiving the letter but regressed again after receiving it.

Despite being reassured by all around her that she would permanently remain with her foster mother, the child’s behaviour significantly deteriorated, she continued to express fear of her mother and referred to past traumatic incidents involving the mother’s previous boyfriend. [ 18 ] Moreover, the child directly expressed not wanting contact with her mother on multiple occasions and to multiple people (therapist, social worker, foster mother and teacher). [ 19 ] According to Elizabeth Roberts, the child’s psychologist within […] Program A, the child views her mother as a stranger and expresses consistent fear of being taken away by her [1] .

Consequently, contact was once again suspended provisionally until the completion of the hearing. [ 20 ] Meanwhile, the mother’s personal situation has shown definite signs of deterioration.

The evidence establishes that over the following months: - the mother’s attendance at the methadone clinic was sporadic; - she was often difficult to reach; - she failed to attend social follow-up meetings; - she delayed signing authorizations required for school; - she was inconsistent with her meetings at Narcotics Anonymous; - she has relapsed regarding heroin use; - her boyfriend, with whom she resides, also consumes heroine. [ 21 ] The child has been receiving ongoing psychological and psychiatric services.

The court draws the following conclusions from the evidence of their assessment and treatment of the child: - the child suffers from multiple disorders including Oppositional Disorder, ADHD and Attachment Disorder; - moreover, her Attachment Disorder is compounded by Complex Trauma, thereby increasing the risk to her emotional development; - the child is extremely reactive to any change and becomes oppositional, withdrawn and aggressive;

- pursuing indirect contact with her mother against the child’s wishes will cause further destabilization; - she requires stability and consistency in order to progress; - her behavioural issues are rooted in the trauma of her first two years and are not the result of the absence of contact with her mother from 2014. [ 22 ] The experts all agree that the child requires a therapeutic intervention that focuses on existing relationships that offer her stability and reassurance, namely her foster mother, school professionals and therapists. [ 23 ] This year, the child has reintegrated a regular school (School

A) after completing […] program B. Her behaviour has been up and down but she has managed to hold her own and has even demonstrated the ability to thrive in this environment. [ 24 ] That being said, the school can only offer her limited services. A prolonged period of acting out would put her at risk of transfer to a different setting. Her stability is a priority in order to preserve the fragile gains that have been observed over the past two years.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 25 ] The experts agree that lifting the suspension of contact with the mother at this time is not in the child’s interest as it provokes distress and anxiety. [ 26 ] The Court agrees. Their opinion is not challenged in any serious manner and is compatible with the evidence as a whole. The attempts to reinstate contact between the mother and the child have not produced the intended results. On the contrary, they have contributed to significant periods of regressive behaviour. [ 27 ] The evidence is unequivocal regarding the bond between the child and the foster mother.

Nevertheless, the child’s state of attachment is extremely fragile and easily disturbed. Her stability and proper development must be prioritized. This can only be done by maintaining the suspension of contact until the child is emotionally ready for the next step. [ 28 ] Moreover, the Court cannot ignore the mother’s own regression. Although she tends to minimize the extent of her difficulties, the mother has in fact acknowledged her relapses, her emotional difficulties as well as inconsistencies in her substance abuse treatment.

The Court has personally observed a deterioration of her physical state over the course of this protracted hearing, further justifying the Director’s position. [ 29 ] The Court’s expectations of the mother were clearly outlined in the previous judgment; specifically she was expected to: - remain abstinent; - continue substance abuse treatment; - cooperate with transparency and consistency in the social follow- up; - demonstrate stability and a positive lifestyle. [ 30 ] The evidence establishes that the mother has been unable to maintain her earlier progress.

It must be reminded that her stability was just as important a factor as the child’s emotional readiness in the pursuit of contact. Consequently, it follows that the mother’s regression should have a conclusive impact on the issue at hand. The child, even if stable, cannot be reintroduced to her mother if there isn’t a sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness and reliability on her part. [ 31 ] The evidence does not support a timeline regarding an eventual reinstatement of contact.

Only the evolution of child’s development along with the mother’s personal situation can determine if and when contact should be resumed. The child’s wishes are also a factor to be taken into account, thereby allowing her to exercise a certain measure of control over her fears and anxiety. [ 32 ] For this reason, the Court considers that the recommendation requested by the child’s lawyer is not in her interest. The situation as it stands is particularly fragile and the prognosis is poor considering the mother’s recent struggles.

Imposing a time frame in such an unpredictable situation serves no purpose. [ 33 ] The mother has expressed mistrusting the Director’s intentions and good faith on this subject. Although the court is sensitive to the mother’s concerns, the evidence is clear that the child’s best interest has always been the focus of the intervention. [ 34 ] Nevertheless, the Court considers that the mother is entitled to receive regular updates on the child’s progress.

This would allow her the opportunity to return to court if she considers that the evolution of the situation justifies a change in the application of the suspension order. The Court encourages her to make every effort towards her personal rehabilitation. [ 35 ] On the issue of the exercise of the parental attributes, the Court concludes that the mother’s situation has proven to be unstable. The social worker has, on multiple occasions, been unable to communicate with her for extended periods of time. In addition, authorizations are not always signed in a timely fashion.

The mother’s explanations in response to these allegations are not reassuring when assessed in light of the evidence as a whole. [ 36 ] Considering the child’s extensive needs, the Court is of the opinion that that services must be offered without delay in order to foster the sense of security and reassurance that she clearly requires. [ 37 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 38 ] THE COURT:

[ 39 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continue to be endangered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to her current confidential foster home (Miss C); [ 42 ] ORDERS that contact between the mother and the child be suspended for a minimum period of six months; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES the reinstatement of indirect contact between the mother and the child after a period of six months under the following conditions: [ 44 ] (

i) Regarding the mother : - that the mother has consistently participated in substance abuse treatment program while providing proof thereof to the social worker; - that the mother has maintained abstinence for a reasonable amount of time; - that the mother has participated regularly in the social follow-up; - that the mother has demonstrated a stable lifestyle; [ 45 ] (ii) Regarding the child : - that the child has been deemed emotionally ready to participate in the reinstatement of contact by the professionals involved in her therapeutic intervention; - that the child is willing to participate in the reinstatement of contact with her mother. [ 46 ] Upon the reinstatement of indirect contact, AUTHORIZES the Director to determine the frequency and modality of the indirect contacts in accordance with the child’s wishes and in consultation with the child’s treating professionals; [ 47 ] Following the reinstatement of indirect contacts, AUTHORIZES the progressive reinstatement of direct contacts between the mother and the child under the same conditions and AUTHORIZES the Director to determine the frequency and modality of contacts, including supervision, in accordance with the child’s wishes and in consultation with the child’s treating professionals; [ 48 ] ORDERS the Director to keep the mother regularly informed of the child's progress with the therapeutic team; [ 49 ] ORDERS the Director to keep the mother regularly informed of the reasons justifying the continuation of the suspension of contact after the first six months; [ 50 ] ORDERS the Director to provide the mother with reasonable access to the professionals involved in the ongoing therapeutic intervention for the purpose of discussing the child’s progress; [ 51 ] PROHIBITS contact between the child and her father; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the child not be in contact with her maternal grandmother D; [ 53 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents the exercise of the parental attributes pertaining to travel, education, passport and medical needs and GRANTS them to the foster mother; [ 54 ] ORDERS the Director to provide the child with therapeutic services and support including psychological and psychiatric services as long as deemed necessary by the treating professionals; [ 55 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to exchange information with the treating professionals involved with the child and the mother; [ 56 ] RECOMMEND that the mother participate in a substance abuse treatment; [ 57 ] RECOMMEND that the mother participate in personal therapy; [ 58 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 60 ] THE WHOLE until majority .

SIGNED IN TOWN A On June 27, 2019

__________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the child Me Judith Shapiro-Knight Attorney for the mother Dates of hearing: January 10, June 26, October 5 and December 18, 2018; April 18 and June 13, 2019 KO/lf