2018 QCCQ 20519, 2018 QCCQ 20519

Protection de la jeunesse — 184734 2018 QCCQ 20519 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] N° : 525-41-030319-156 DATE : February 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on […], 2011 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on February 2, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of two motions for extension of the decision rendered on January 22 nd , 2016, by the undersigned. The Director is asking that the children remain entrusted to the care of their mother and that aid, counsel and assistance, along with other measures, the provided to the family for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] The mother makes a general admission of the facts alleged in the motions.

She is opposed to her daughter X undergoing a psychiatric assessment and to the Court recommending that she (the mother) undergo as well a psychiatric assessment. Otherwise, she agrees with the recommendations of the Director. [ 4 ] Counsel for the children makes no admission on their behalf. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the children’s attorney support most of the recommendations of the Director. As to the psychiatric assessment for X, the attorney suggests that the Court recommend such assessment if requested by the treating professional.

CONTEXT [ 5 ] For the reasons that appear from the Court file, the inquiry on the motions started on June 1 st , 2017 and was completed only on February 2 nd , 2018.

[ 6 ] When the last decision was rendered, in January 2016, the mother and her daughters were living temporarily in a shelter for victims of violence. Around March 2016, the mother and her children moved into an apartment and the mother took steps to ensure that Mr. B, father of X, would not find out her address. [ 7 ] Despite the mother’s efforts to keep her address confidential, Mr. B found out where she lived and showed up at her door, early May 2016. He became physically aggressive and threatening towards the mother. Police intervention was necessary.

The father was arrested and plead guilty to charges he was facing in relation to the incident. He received a sentence (twelve months of prison) on October 4 th , 2016. [ 8 ] Following the incident of May 1 st , 2016, the mother, once more, went to a shelter with her daughters. Behavioural issues were manifested by X in reaction to the violence she had witnessed once more. Play therapy was provided for the child. [ 9 ] After three months in the shelter, the mother found an apartment. X started attending school (kindergarten).

It was observed that X was developmentally delayed and a psychoeducational assessment was requested. [ 10 ] In the fall of 2016, the mother revealed that Mr. B used to hit X. [ 11 ] Although therapy was suggested for the mother, she indicated that she was not interested in pursuing therapy, in part because of a negative experience she had in the past. In November 2016, a worker from the CLSC (SIPPE worker) started working with the family.

The goal was to help the mother find a family doctor, locate resources in her neighborhood and find a daycare for X. [ 12 ] In January 2017, the family physician also expressed concerns that the mother may be depressed and possibly suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The mother did not feel comfortable taking her prescribed medication.

Despite encouragement, she remained uninterested in pursuing therapy for herself. [ 13 ] The worker notes in her report that during that a period of time, it was difficult to meet with the mother to provide aid, counsel and assistance as the mother frequently cancelled appointments at the last minute.

It was made clear that she needed to make herself available for meetings, both with the Director and with the CLSC worker, it order to benefit from the services offered. [ 14 ] End of March 2017, X revealed to the worker that her mother hit her when she does something wrong. [ 15 ] Subsequently, the school reported that the mother was seen yelling at X and hitting her on the head because she was not getting dressed quickly enough. Additional information was to the effect that X once came to school with a bruise near her eye.

When asked what had happened, X started to cry and refused to speak. [ 16 ] Other concerns reported by the school were to the effect that: • X was arriving at school smelling of urine; • X was not dressed warmly enough for the season; • X has come to school without a lunch; • X was not receiving the needed stimulation at home; • X was often absent from school on Mondays. [ 17 ] The mother admitted that she has hit X, saying that the child is difficult and that other means of discipline do not work. The mother shared that this has been going on since the child was a baby.

The mother explained that part of her anger towards X is due to the fact that X looks like her father. The mother told the worker that she has not hit X since the Director has told her that it is unacceptable. The mother finds it difficult not to resort to physical discipline and claims that both the bible and her church favour the use of physical force in disciplining children. [ 18 ] In July 2017, X was assessed by a psychologist. This assessment shows that the child has developmental delay in the cognitive and affective domains. The child has “significant difficulty regulating her behaviors and emotions”.

The child exhibits symptoms consistent with the experience of trauma (difficulty focusing on school related tasks, aggressive and regressive behaviors, excessive demands for attention, poor skill development, challenges in social situations, screaming and recreation of negative scenarios). [ 19 ] Various recommendations were made by the psychologist including coaching and support for the mother, play therapy for the child, therapeutic intervention for the mother and child as well as stimulation for the child and speech and language therapy. [ 20 ] End on August 2017, during a visit of the worker to the family home, the mother threatens to hit X.

When asked to stop, the mother explained that she was not going to hit the child but claimed that threatening to hit the child is the only way to make her listen. The child’ then divulged, in the presence of her mother, that her mother hits her and that the last time it happened was the day before. [ 21 ] That last situation led to a new signalement that needed to be assessed. The mother and the children went to stay with a cousin in Town B for a few days. After discussions, the mother and the children came back to reside in their apartment.

X returned to school and X to daycare. [ 22 ] The educator continued to work with the mother around issues of parenting, organisational skills, budgeting and other issues as needed. Measures recommended following the psychological assessment were put in place by the school. Although X’s situation seems to have improved, at times, the child still does not have a lunch. The mother explains that approximately once every two weeks, she forgets to pay for the lunch program and therefore, the child does not have a lunch.

[ 23 ] Again in November 2017, the physician recommended that X undergo a psychiatric assessment, in particular to assess for ADHD, PTSD and o ppositional defiant disorder (ODD). The mother is opposed to the assessment as the child has already gone through many assessments and is receiving many services. [ 24 ] The physician also suggests that the mother undergo a psychiatric assessment regarding possible depression and PTSD. The mother is opposed to it but the Court recommends to the mother to reconsider the referral made by the physician.

Addressing her personal issues is very important if she wishes to receive the services that are likely to help her recover from the trauma she has suffered. [ 25 ] Since early November 2017, the mother sees a therapist from the CLSC. It is hoped that she will continue to benefit from the services. [ 26 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the children continue to be compromised for the initial reasons alleged (psychological ill-treatment and risk of physical abuse).

In addition, the evidence reveals that X has been physically abused (by her father, by her mother and possibly by her great aunt). X has also been neglected: her basic needs were not appropriately met and the child was not provided with appropriate supervision and support. [ 27 ] The mother having resorted to inappropriate means of discipline since X was a baby, the Court concludes that X is at risk of being physically abused as well. The risk for neglect also exists for X. [ 28 ] The recommendations made by the Director meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised due to psychological ill-treatment (exposure to conjugal violence), risk of physical abuse, physical abuse (child hit by father and inappropriate means of discipline by mother) and neglect (basic needs unmet and inappropriate supervision and support); AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of her mother; [ 32 ] TAKES ACT of the intention of the Director to provide respite for the child in foster care, as needed; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that the recommendations identified following the psychological assessments of X be followed through; [ 34 ] ORDERS that X receive the following health services: that she undergo a psychiatric assessment as soon as possible and that X, along with her mother, participate in therapy provided by a psychologist; [ 35 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between X and her father, Mr.

B; [ 36 ] WITHDRAWS from the father the exercise of all attributes of parental authority, except surveillance.

The mother will exercise the attributes of parental authority alone; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to pursue her therapy to deal with her individual issues; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS to the mother that she undergo a psychiatric assessment and follow the recommendations if any; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 40 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her mother; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out [ 42 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

Signed on March 1 st , 2018 _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Doherty Attorney for the children Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : February 2 nd , 2018 MA/vl