2013 QCCQ 13849, 2013 QCCQ 13849

Protection de la jeunesse — 134766 JL 4031 COURT OF QUEBEC 2013 QCCQ 13849 YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] No: 525-41-026895-136 525-41-026896-134 DATE : August 1 st , 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : THE HONORABLE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTERS Director and X born […] , 2005 Y born […] , 2003 children and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court hereby gives reasons for the decision rendered further to the hearing held on August 1 st , 2013, as required by

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 2 ] The Court is seized of a Motion filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centers (" the Director" ), to extend an order rendered by the Honorable Daniel Perreault on February 9 th , 2012, entrusting the children to their father with aid, counsel and assistance and other corrective measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 3 ] More particularly, the Director alleges the following: 3.1.

Y and X remain in the care of their father; 3.2. the children's behaviour has improved while in the father's care; 3.3. the children and father receive counselling services from the CLSC; 3.4. up to December 2012, the children visited their mother on a weekly basis in the presence of the maternal aunt C;

3.5. in early December 2012, the father suspended this contact due to an incident that occurred between C and Y; 3.6. on December 19, 2012, the mother was acquitted on the assault charge against X, and pleaded guilty to the assault charge against Y, for which she received an unconditional discharge; 3.7. in late December 2012, the children spent a week in the mother's care; 3.8. issues arranging regular visitation with the mother remain problematic; 3.9. the mother retains legal custody of the children; 3.10. no procedures are presently pending before the Superior Court with respect to a change of custody or access; 3.11. a return to the mother's care according to the Superior Court judgment would not be in the children's interest; 3.12. in late January 2013, information was reported to the Director of Youth Protection alleging the child and sibling were severely neglected in the father's care, and an assessment is ongoing; 3.13. ongoing verification, monitoring and intervention are required; [ 4 ] As explained later, the children have been entrusted to their maternal aunt A.

Today, the Director is recommending continued placement with the aunt with other support measures until August 30, 2014. [ 5 ] Both parents are present, assisted by their respective lawyer, and essentially agree with the recommendations.

The children's lawyer is also in agreement with the proposed measures. [ 6 ] Thus, the only issue before the Court is to determine if the measures proposed by the Director and with which all parties agree are in the children's best interest. [ 7 ] The relevant facts are as follows. [ 8 ] Following the last Court order (February 2012) entrusting the children to the father, the children remained with their father in A while their mother remained in the B area. She was followed by a youth protection worker in her area. [ 9 ] CLSC services were provided to support the father as of February 2012 to help with X.

X was also assessed in psychiatry in October 2012 and found to have an attachment disorder, an adjustment disorder, attention difficulties and possible PTSD symptoms. Y presented difficult behaviour, particularly during the summer of 2012, for which the father did not deem fit to pursue A center services. [ 10 ] Nonetheless, father proved to be a devoted parent who did his best to meet the needs of two young boys with special needs. They both have autism but still function relatively well.

The father collaborated well with the school and generally, their needs were met. [ 11 ] Despite this, the father struggled in his parenting with regard to various issues. [ 12 ] Indeed, a new signalement , dated January 31, 2013, revealed that the father sometimes used inappropriate discipline and allowed the children to remain in substandard housing infested with bed bugs and other parasites; the children had several bed bug bite marks. It is only when the apartment became uninhabitable that the father moved.

The father had not always exercised proper supervision, for example, by allowing Y to remain at home alone for extended periods of time. [ 13 ] As well, serious issues have arisen regarding the mother's visits. A conflict between the father and Ms. C, maternal aunt supervising the visits (person designated by the Director as per the February 2012 Court order) brought the father to suspend the mother's visits for December 31, 2012 to February 9, 2013.

In so doing, the father was responding more specifically to the aunt bringing certain paternal neglect issues to the attention of the Director and to her grabbing Y during a visit to, in her words, restrain him. Frustrated by the father's unilateral suspension of visits, the mother seized the Court of this situation and on March 8, 2013, the Court ordered that the visits continue, as per the existing Court order. The evidence reveals that the children enjoy their visits and want them to continue.

The father's behaviour has the DYP concerned that he may be alienating the children from the mother and the maternal family. [ 14 ] In addition to this, the mother herself has not been regular in her visits with the children, claiming financial and time constraints. Visits have therefore sometimes taken place with the aunt only. [ 15 ] The mother is a full-time student. She collaborates very well with the Director. She pleaded guilty in December 2012 to the assault on Y and received an unconditional discharge.

She was acquitted on the charges related to X. [ 16 ] The mother has not completed a parenting program nor attended anger management therapy. It would appear that various delays were encountered in setting up these services. [ 17 ] The situation remained fragile but stable until late March 2013 when X reportedly expressed suicidal thoughts for which he was seen in psychiatry. The psychiatrist's observations were that the father was unable to recognize his son's distress and that he denied any element of negligence.

Further, the psychiatrist put a stop to his interview given the father's aggressive behaviour towards the youth protection worker, behaviour the father denies. The psychiatrist felt that X showed serious attachment problems, probably due to his extremely precarious psychosocial situation. [ 18 ] It is in this context that immediate protective measures were invoked and that both children were entrusted to their aunt A. [ 19 ] The main hearing was to begin before the undersigned a few days later, on March 28, 2013 . Given the very recent placement,

the psychiatrist's opinion that both children remain with the aunt and that all parties agreed with this, the Court maintained the children with the aunt until June 18, 2013 to allow further time to assess the situation. [ 20 ] Following this, the children adapted relatively well to their aunt's home. The father's collaboration with the Director has been difficult. A separate worker was assigned to him given his aggressive behaviour towards his former worker however, due to circumstances beyond everyone's control, there were delays in setting this up.

The father also went for long periods without contacting his boys. [ 21 ] The mother has collaborated and maintained more regular contact with the children. [ 22 ] On June 18, 2013, the case was postponed to today with status quo at the request of the father's attorney. [ 23 ] Since June 18, 2013, the situation has remained essentially unchanged. The children have remained with their aunt and appear to be receiving proper care. The aunt remains committed to caring for them.

X continues to receive services from a CLSC psychoeducator, Mrs D, whom the father trusts implicitly. [ 24 ] The mother has not been consistent in her visits. Her intentions are to complete her studies, to see her children regularly (at least every two weeks), to undergo a parental capacity assessment and anger management and to work towards the children returning to her care. [ 25 ] The father has been visiting weekly without incident. Nonetheless, he reports that the children have been extremely impolite with him during visits.

After consulting with Mrs D, the father recently concluded that having the children return to his care would create more confusion for them and consequently, that it would be in their best interest to remain with their aunt for the next year. He further feels that the deck is stacked against him and that the Director has been unfair in its dealings with him. At this time, he plans to return to A City in September 2013, where his family lives, and look into accessing services for a possible depression.

He nonetheless has made it clear that he is not abandoning his boys and wants to continue to have regular phone and "Skype" contact with them, as well as visits in person inasmuch as his finances will allow. He recognizes that regaining custody of his children during or at the end of the year is unlikely if he has remained in A City. [ 26 ] Although there were issues in how the father dealt with the children, the father aptly points to various positive aspects in his caring for the children. [ 27 ] Of note, there has been the question of the children changing school.

The parties agree with the father's suggestion that Mrs D be consulted in this regard given her knowledge of the children's situation. [ 28 ] Thus, at this time, neither parent is in a position to care for the children. Luckily, they are in the care of an aunt who knows them well and who is committed to caring for them over the next year. These children have special needs.

Consequently, important supports will be required in order to preserve their placement with their aunt. [ 29 ] For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the measures proposed by the Director are in the best interest of the children. [ 30 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 31 ] GRANTS the Motions ; and [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the children is still compromised; [ 33 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES : [ 34 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their maternal aunt, Ms.

A; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and both parents be determined by the Director including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents' intention is to remain involved with their children; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother undergo a parental capacity assessment; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and the maternal extended family be determined by the Director; [ 39 ] ORDERS the parents no to denigrate one another or their respective families in presence of the children; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that Y receive any services to which he is entitled through the a center network or through the CLSC; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with any services offered for X, including any psychiatric or psychological services, necessary to address his emotional needs; [ 42 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to sign consents for the children to receive any pertinent psycho-social, psychological, psychiatric or A center services should the parents refuse without a valid reason; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain and share information with all of the service providers working with the family;

[ 44 ] ORDERS the Director to inform the parents with all the information concerning the services provided for their children; [ 45 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family and to work in consultation with Ms. [Social Worker 1] the services required for the children including the schools they should attend; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 47 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 48 ] ALL OF THESE ORDERS will apply until August 30 th , 2014; City B, this day of August 2013 _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director Me Luce James Attorney for the children Me Lillian Stah Attorney for the Mother Me Michèle Gauthier Attorney for the father Date of hearing : CL/nl March 28 th , June 18 th and August 1 st , 2013;