2019 QCCQ 16808, 2019 QCCQ 16808

Protection de la jeunesse — 195420 2019 QCCQ 16808 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-034470-187 DATE : February 4, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2002 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38, 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 declare that the security or the development of the adolescent is endangered as a result of negligence regarding her basic needs, a serious risk of negligence as well as the adolescent’s failure to attend school. [ 2 ] Essentially, the applicant alleges that: - the home is extremely unsanitary; - the adolescent is unable to maintain basic personal hygiene; - there is insufficient food in the home; - the family dynamics are unhealthy and have a prejudicial impact on the adolescent’s development; - the adolescent is not attending school regularly. [ 3 ] The Director argues that there has been minimal improvement since social services became involved.

Moreover, the family has failed to cooperate, making their intervention relatively inefficient.

Consequently, the Director is asking for a nine-month rehabilitation centre placement along, with a social follow-up and other corrective measures until the adolescent’s majority. [ 4 ] The parents and the adolescent deny many essential allegations, contest the degree of difficulty reported in others and assert that the Director has not met its burden regarding the state of endangerment. [ 5 ] Alternatively, they argue that the situation does not require the adolescent’s placement and ask that she be entrusted to her father with a social follow-up. [ 6 ] The mother further adds that she does not want any restrictions imposed on her contact with the adolescent and contests the recommendation that she obtain therapeutic services.

The State of Endangerment (

i) Introduction [ 7 ] The family is known to social services, having previously been involved with youth protection dating as far back as 2008. In addition, CLSC services have been available to the family since 2015 as a result of the adolescent’s mild intellectual disability and concerns regarding her schooling. [ 8 ] The parents are separated and the adolescent lives with her father. X has a paternal half-brother, Y. It should be noted that when Y was only eleven years old, the mother initiated a sexual relationship with him that led to the Director’s original involvement with the family.

As a result of their intervention, this inappropriate relationship ended for a time but resumed several years ago, after Y’s age of majority. [ 9 ] Despite the parents’ breakup and regardless of the relationship between the mother and Y, the family has lived together in the recent past. The family dynamics are particularly complicated, leading to strife amongst the members.

The evidence also reveals that the mother has a longstanding habit of drug use, namely marihuana and methamphetamine. [ 10 ] According to CLSC worker [social worker 1] [1] , the family was referred for services in 2015, primarily because of the adolescent’s poor school attendance. [ 11 ] Ms. [social worker 1] became personally involved with the family in 2017. She confirmed that school attendance was an ongoing issue and quickly observed the home life to be chaotic.

In addition to the interpersonal family problems already noted, the adolescent was exposed to persistent conflict between the parents as well as the mother’s drug use. Furthermore, the father complained of significant financial concerns and insufficient food in the home. The CLSC social worker became concerned that basic needs were not being met. [ 12 ] Although she attempted to offer relevant services, the family’s cooperation was not forthcoming. The father and daughter refused her request to meet at the home and failed to attend most meetings.

The mother categorically refused to participate in any way although she did answer some questions over the phone. The worker hasn’t been able to provide any assistance in the past year and the file is no longer considered active. [ 13 ] Despite his poor collaboration with the CLSC, the father was quite aware of the toxic nature of the home environment [2] . He was particularly concerned about the adolescent’s exposure to the constant arguing in the home as well as to the mother’s drug use.

Approximately a year ago, he moved out of the family home with his daughter in the hope of offering her a fresh start. [ 14 ] This situation was short-lived. As a result of an eviction and having nowhere to go, the mother and Y moved into the new apartment. The mother and Y have since moved out (albeit at the insistence of the Director) but only as far as the apartment next door. (ii) The Director’s assessment : [ 15 ] Between February and May of 2018, the Director received two reports alleging neglect by the parents as well as the adolescent’s infrequent attendance at school.

The assessment of the signalement was assigned to [social worker 2] on September 11, 2018. [ 16 ] Her first contact with the family occurred the following day, in the context of an unannounced visit to the home. It quickly became apparent that the Director’s implication in their lives was unwelcome. [ 17 ] Since then, access to the home has been denied or restricted on multiple occasions and this, despite the provisional measures that have been in effect since September 17, 2018. Expectations of the father and the adolescent have been clearly outlined.

Nevertheless, transparency and cooperation on their part have been hard to come by.

a) Cleanliness and hygiene : [ 18 ] Despite the antagonistic environment, the social worker and an educator were able to obtain sufficient access to the home over the course of the intervention to observe the following: - Garbage on the floor; - Soiled mattresses placed directly on the living room floor; - Foul odours emanating from various rooms including the adolescent’s bedroom; - A dirty and unhygienic bathroom; - The presence of dirt, cigarette butts, mildew and leftover food; - Dog food scattered on the kitchen counters; - Improperly stored cat litter emitting strong odours; - Urine on the floor, likely from the family dog [3] . [ 19 ] During the period of time where the mother and Y were living in the same home, the mother smoked cigarettes and marihuana in the apartment, contributing to the stench.

Although the father maintains that he never wanted the mother and Y to remain, he had difficulty standing his ground and the Director’s intervention was necessary to persuade them to leave.

[ 20 ] Personal hygiene was also observed to be an issue. Both the adolescent and her father appeared to wash infrequently, as evidenced by oily and tangled hair, foul body odour and the presence of dirt on their skin. Clothes, bed sheets and pillows were stained and went unwashed. [ 21 ] The adolescent asserts that she has all the personal body products that she needs (soap, shampoo etc.) and insists that she showers regularly. Yet, her appearance at school has been described as dirty and unkept.

Furthermore, her teacher affirms having brought the adolescent underwear and feminine hygiene products. [ 22 ] The family has been provided with multiple cleaning products. Nevertheless, in the social worker’s opinion, the situation has not significantly improved. Of more concern is the family’s inability to perceive their situation as needing improvement: “When discussing these concerns with both parents and X, they did not believe that the home environment was dirty nor did they understand the importance of maintaining adequate hygiene.

These issues have become so chronic and grave that X does not present as knowing the reasons behind personal hygiene and living in a clean environment. She places these issues as her last priority and will challenge any adult who will question these concerns with her. [4] ” [ 23 ] Over the past few months, the home has been in a somewhat better state. The main problem however is inconsistency. The father testifies that he does not always have the energy or the motivation to establish and/or maintain order and cleanliness in the home.

The adolescent’s involvement in chores is limited although she does make an effort at times.

b) Food and nutrition : [ 24 ] Both the educator and the social worker have concerns about the sufficiency of the food in the home. They have observed on multiple occasions that the fridge has very little content, if any. Expired food is also an issue. The family generally has non-perishables available although the nutritive value is questionable. [ 25 ] Information gathered from the school indicates that the adolescent rarely brings lunches to school and has no money for purchase.

The school provides her with lunches on a regular basis. [ 26 ] The father concedes that his finances are tight but he insists that his daughter is always fed. He testifies that he has support from food banks and from extended family. Although fresh products aren’t always available, he affirms that the adolescent never skips a meal for lack of food and points to her size as corroboration.

If he is unable to offer her a meal with the food on hand, he orders pizza or picks something up at the grocery store. [ 27 ] The adolescent confirms that if anything, she overeats and dismissively rejects any suggestion that she has insufficient access to food.

c) School : [ 28 ] Until the Director’s intervention, the adolescent’s school attendance was consistently declining. Both the adolescent and the father have provided multiple reasons ranging from insomnia to a lack of clean clothes. [ 29 ] Aside from her poor attendance, the adolescent’s behaviour at school was problematic.

She was described as confrontational and verbally aggressive to staff. [ 30 ] Attempts by the school to solicit the father’s assistance failed to produce any results. [ 31 ] The adolescent is currently attending […] program A, designed for children with mild intellectual disabilities, at […] School A. She functions at a grade three or four level. (iii) The Director’s intervention : [ 32 ] According to the Director’s evidence, the intervention has been hampered by a lack of cooperation within the family.

As already mentioned, access to the home has been limited and even occasionally refused. [ 33 ] Of more concern is the attitude observed by the workers as they attempt to offer assistance. The mother is particularly hostile towards the workers and blames them for having to move out of the father’s apartment. She is either unaware that the father never wanted her to stay or she lacks complete regard for his position.

Either one is worrisome when it comes to assessing the father’s ability to protect his daughter. [ 34 ] Despite acknowledging that the father is unable to maintain an acceptable state of cleanliness in his home, the mother calls the intervention useless, stupid and unnecessary. Moreover, she does so in the adolescent’s presence. [ 35 ] Unsurprisingly, the adolescent also demonstrates an aggressive attitude towards the workers when her mother is present.

She complains about their involvement and uses the same words as her mother, calling them stupid. [ 36 ] The father’s collaboration fluctuates and his state of mind is often unpredictable. Although he expresses genuine concern for his daughter, he can be reactive when the social worker tries to address issues with him. [ 37 ] For example, the worker noticed an ashtray and food directly on top of a soiled mattress in the living room. When she pointed out the unsanitary nature of her observations, the father became angry and headed towards her in a manner that caused her to fear for her safety.

She immediately left the vicinity. [ 38 ] On a positive note, the situation at school has improved tremendously. Since the provisional measures, attendance has become consistent, with few exceptions. Moreover, the adolescent has been doing better both academically and behaviourally. The social worker

testifies that the support services offered to the adolescent have allowed her to thrive. (iv) The testimony of the father and the adolescent : [ 39 ] The father denies the Director’s description of the apartment. He uses words like disorderly or messy rather than dirty. He refers to a “garbage situation” with the building’s receptacle in order to explain an accumulation of garbage in his apartment. Much of his testimony is dedicated to minimizing or explaining the state of the home. [ 40 ] He concedes that he doesn’t always have the motivation to carry out the chores that he knows are necessary.

His health is poor and he lacks support. Although his brother provides him with some minor financial assistance, he appears to struggle with his responsibilities. The father testifies that he finds it difficult to be a single parent and assures that he’s trying his best. [ 41 ] He’s amazed by his daughter’s recent progress in school and is proud of her determination and independence. [ 42 ] There is no doubt that the father cares deeply about his daughter.

He is visibly distressed at the idea of placement and commits to doing whatever it takes to keep her in his care. [ 43 ] With much emotion, the father acknowledges the harm caused by the mother and Y’s situation to the family dynamics. He admits wanting to remove the adolescent from the persistent conflicts and the mother’s drug use. Although the mother’s current proximity was an unexpected turn of events, he asserts that there is no more conflict between them. [ 44 ] The father confirms a certain wariness and mistrust of the social worker although he understands that she’s just doing her job.

While the intervention has caused him much stress, he assures that he intends to cooperate if a social follow-up is imposed. [ 45 ] The adolescent’s testimony focuses primarily on her belief that everything is fine and that the involvement of youth protection is unnecessary, more specifically: - The state of the house is acceptable, a few dirty dishes, clothes on the floor, nothing more; - Although there isn’t always a lot of food, she gets what she needs; - School is going very well, she’s happy and motivated; - She’s not bothered in the least by her mother’s relationship with her half-brother despite knowing that it hurts her father; - She’s not affected by her mother’s drug consumption and it has no influence on her. [ 46 ] The adolescent insists that she can take care of herself and even enjoys doing so.

She appears to have no specific concerns and is satisfied with the situation as it stands. She doesn’t trust or appreciate the Director’s intervention. [ 47 ] The evidence also reveals that the adolescent was upset by the Director’s insistence that the mother and Y leave the home. She, like her mother, blamed the social worker for what she perceived as an unwelcome change in their situation.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 48 ] The evidence presented by the Director is compelling and leads to the conclusion that the adolescent’s situation fails to provide for her basic needs. [ 49 ] The evidence does not support a finding that the home is simply messy or disorderly. Rather, the evidence as a whole indicates that the home is unsanitary. [ 50 ] The state of the apartment as described by the social worker and the educator leaves no doubt as to the legitimacy of their concerns.

Specifically, the court concludes that hygiene, both personal and in relation to the upkeep of the home, is in fact a significant problem that has yet to be resolved. Standing alone, this situation is sufficient to justify the Director’s submission of neglect. [ 51 ] On the other hand, the concerns regarding the sufficiency of food, while understandable, are not supported by the evidence. The nutritional value of the food offered to the adolescent may be questionable but the Court accepts that she does not go hungry. [ 52 ] The parties acknowledge that school has been problematic in the past.

It is argued that currently, the issue no longer exists given that attendance and performance have dramatically improved. [ 53 ] Although that may be so, the court nevertheless points out that it took the Director’s intervention and the court’s insistence by way of the provisional orders to bring about the changes observed in recent months. Prior to that, the adolescent showed little if any interest in academics. Moreover, the father tended to justify and excuse his daughter’s absences, thereby aggravating the situation. [ 54 ] From his testimony, the father appears to concede that concerns exist.

However, he downplays the seriousness or extent of the identified issues. He also offers situational contexts in lieu of explanations as though these are isolated problems that will resolve themselves. In doing so, he fails to reassure the court that he has in fact integrated the need for change. [ 55 ] The court concludes from the evidence that the situation goes beyond the presence of a serious risk. The father has struggled with his parental responsibilities and has failed to exercise his authority when it was clearly required.

Despite the offer of support from the CLSC, there was little effort on his part to ensure that his daughter received the help that she so clearly required. Her needs should not have been ignored as they were. [ 56 ] As far as the mother is concerned, not only did she deliberately refuse to assume her own parental responsibilities, she actively

interfered with the attempts to provide services to her daughter. Her proximity to the father’s home is a concern rather than a reassurance. [ 57 ] Although the adolescent is convinced that school is no longer an issue, the Court is of the opinion that she will need professional support to maintain her progress. She has future objectives that will require hard work, discipline, support and guidance. [ 58 ] Moreover, her perception of her situation is perplexing in that she fails to identify a single issue within what can realistically be described as a dysfunctional family.

Her belief that all is well is disconcerting given the context. [ 59 ] For all these reasons, the court concludes that the Director has established endangerment as a result of negligence by failing to provide for the adolescent’s basic physical needs, negligence by failing to provide the adolescent with appropriate supervision or support as well as the adolescent’s frequent and unjustified absences at school.

The Measures [ 60 ] The chronicity of the problems within this family as established by the evidence leads to the conclusion that without consistent professional support, resolution is unlikely. [ 61 ] The suggestion that the adolescent’s only remaining difficulties revolve around keeping her room in order oversimplifies a rather multifaceted situation. The adolescent is ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of her family situation.

She requires support and services that have been denied to her prior to the Director’s involvement. [ 62 ] The evidence establishes that the mother is either unwilling or unable to exercise any substantial parental role in the adolescent’s life. [ 63 ] With the exception of moving to a different home over a year ago, the father has remained far too passive in relation to his daughter’s development. Moreover, the evidence reveals that the family harbours mistrust and animosity towards youth protection services, thereby hindering the intervention.

The members deploy more energy attempting to hide their lifestyle than correcting it. [ 64 ] The father expresses his best intentions with emotion and sincerity. However, the evidence as a whole indicates that he cannot be relied upon to follow through.

More particularly, the court refers to his continued mistrust of the social workers, his recent refusal to provide access to his apartment in breach of the provisional court order, his overall lack of cooperation with social services and with the CLSC as well as his tendency to trivialize the issues. [ 65 ] In this context, the court is of the opinion that the adolescent’s removal from the home is necessary in order to begin a process of rehabilitation in an environment that is more likely to produce enduring results. [ 66 ] The father is encouraged to use this time wisely in order to adequately prepare for an eventual reintegration.

Routine, structure, cleanliness and hygiene must be developed and integrated into a lifestyle that adequately provides for the adolescent’s needs. [ 67 ] Regarding contact with the mother, a certain amount of monitoring is required in order to ensure that she does not interfere with the adolescent’s progress. The evidence exposing the mother’s personal situation indicates that she could certainly benefit from services to address her difficulties.

The court encourages her to do so. [ 68 ] In light of the evidence, the court concludes that the nature of the Director’s recommendations best serve the adolescent’s interest.

Keeping in mind the improvements regarding school as well as the attachment of the adolescent to her father, an earlier start to the progressive reintegration appears justified. [ 69 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 70 ] THE COURT: [ 71 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 72 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are endangered based on sections 38(1)(b)i), 38(1)(b)ii) and 38.1(b); [ 73 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months following which, ORDERS that she be entrusted to her father; [ 74 ] AUTHORIZES progressive reintegration to her father’s home after six months; [ 75 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the adolescent and her parents be determined by the Director; [ 76 ] ORDERS that the adolescent and her parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the court; [ 77 ] ORDERS that the adolescent attend a school or another place of learning or participates in a program geared to developing skills and autonomy; [ 78 ] ORDERS that the adolescent receive specific health care and health services, specifically, academic and support services in relation to her intellectual disability; [ 79 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents maintain a clean and healthy environment. [ 80 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in services geared towards improving his parental capacity as well as therapeutic services to address his emotional issues;

[ 81 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in services geared towards her drug usage and anger management as well as counselling for her emotional issues; [ 82 ] ORDERS the parents and the adolescent to report in person to the Director at regular intervals to inform her of the current situation; [ 83 ] ORDERS that aid counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescent and her family. [ 84 ] THE WHOLE until the adolescent’s age of majority. SIGNED IN TOWN A On February 4, 2019 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Angela Nevard Attorney for the D.Y.P.

Me François Parizeau Attorney for the adolescent Me Guy-Luc Grondin Attorney for the mother Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: December 12, 2018 and January 25, 2019 KO/lf