2017 QCCQ 10820, 2017 QCCQ 10820

Protection de la jeunesse — 174761 2017 QCCQ 10820 JA0510 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-007246-137 & 505-41-007247-135 505-41-007663-141 & 505-41-007664-149 DATE : July 27, 2017 BY THE HONOURABLE : MIREILLE ALLAIRE In the matter of the children: X (Born on [...], 2005) Y (Born on [...], 2008) Z (Born on [...], 2012) A (Born on [...], 2013) [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , in capacity authorized person by the Youth Protection Director Declarant and B, C, Parents of the children JUDGMENT Section 95(1) and 95(2) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A. ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an application for revision and extension of a decision under section 95(1) and 95(2) of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] Since the last Court order of April 25, 2016, X and Y have been entrusted to their respective foster family.

The decision mentioned that the placement would be up to their majority of the children and supervised contacts with their parents once a week. [ 3 ] As for A and Z, the placement order ended in December 2016, but has since been provisionally renewed. Supervised contacts were to be made at least once a week for a period of three and half hours. [ 4 ] The children received several health care services according to their needs.

The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to modify the conclusion of the order concerning the contacts with the parents for Y and X, as they could be agreed to by the parties in terms of modalities, frequency and level of supervision. [ 5 ] The Director asks the Court to entrust A and Z to a foster family until their majority and asks that the supervised contacts with their parents be determined by agreement between the parties as for their two oldest children. [ 6 ] The parents maintain their consent to the placement until the majority for Y and X as previously ordered by the Court.

However, they are opposed to the modification of the conclusion concerning the contacts because they were informed that the social worker intends to decrease the frequency. [ 7 ] The parents contest the placement of A and Z until their majority. They accept the placement for a period of up to six months in order to work a family reintegration. They ask for more contacts with them at home. The Proof

[ 8 ] The Court heard Mrs. [Social Worker 2], the social worker on file from April 2015 to August 2016. [ 9 ] A and Z live in the same foster family in City A and they both have made progress in their language and of their motor skills. [ 10 ] They have contact with their parents every week.

Following the order, the visits were held at the Director’s office, but by June 2016, they took place partly at the parents’ home. [ 11 ] During the first two hours A and Z spent time at home, where they took meal with their parents and then, went on to the Petit Pont to meet with their siblings, Y and X for one hour and a half. [ 12 ] Before June 2016, when the visit of the two youngest were held at the Director’s office, the father refused to attend because it made him anxious. Only the mother was present. [ 13 ] From June, the social worker tried to model the parents.

However, they had difficulty in practicing what they were taught. [ 14 ] The mother has a positive attitude towards the social worker’s comments but the father is always arguing and not able to understand the intervention.

According to Mrs. [Social Worker 2], the parents do not plan activities with the children and have little involvement with them. [ 15 ] The visits at home ended because the father would sometimes get angry at the mother, in front the children and because he became aggressive towards the social worker. [ 16 ] Mrs [Social Worker 1], the assigned social worker since August 2016, testifies that she knew the family very well having worked with them before 2015. She supervises the visits and she recognizes the collaboration of the mother. She is calm and she accepts the recommendations.

The father does not understand the recommendations and argues with everything she says. He cannot assimilate a concept or generalize it, when explanations are giving to him. [ 17 ] Recently his psychiatrist changed his medication and wrote that the father needs validation, structure and reminding. He believes that the father could improve his understanding of the situation with external support from the social worker. [ 18 ] However, the father refuses this support and says that he will not take his medication as prescribed and he questions the dosage.

Mrs [Social Worker 1] noticed, in October, that the father became more agitated and more defient. [ 19 ] She believes that the oldest children should see their mother more often and alone, as they are asking. Each of them should benefit from special moments with her and do some activities. The contact with their father should remain supervised because he is not able to control himself and often will make denigrating comments which will stress and hurt the children.

For example, he said to X that he understood his dog better than her. [ 20 ] From her point of view, the mother cannot supervise the contact with the father, because they often argue during the visits. The mother is willing to participate in activities and to receive a personal follow up. However, that’s what she has been saying for several years and has not yet used the services. [ 21 ] X is living with her paternal grandmother, Mrs. D.

She has been followed by the Carrefour socio-medical in Longueuil to make sure that the recommendations of the multi-disciplinary team are applied. [ 22 ] As mentioned in the report filed as D-20, X can sometimes find herself in a conflict of loyalty between her parents and her grandmother. [ 23 ] Mrs. D has been made aware of her grand-daughter’s emotional deficiencies and now better understands her emotional issues.

She needs to be supported to better understand and anticipate the emotions of X and to answer her affective needs. [ 24 ] Following the visits with her parents, she mentioned a few times that it is hard for them to share their attention between the four children, that she is often left aside and that the little ones get more attention. She said that her parents are focusing on the youngest since there is a chance they might be allowed to return home. She clearly mentioned wanting have better contacts with her parents rather than more contacts. [ 25 ] In April 2016, Mrs.

Christine Turcotte, psychologist, recommended that X be provided with psychological counsel and support, but it has not begun. [ 26 ] Y is living with Mrs. E, he has evolved well in her family. He has been assessed by Mr. David Lachance, psychologist, to verify his affective development. The assessment indicates that he has been diagnosed with an attachment disorder as well as with some concentration issues and odd traits.

The neglect he was exposed to has had repercussions and has weakened him which in turn had an effect on his attachment. [ 27 ] The psychologist notes that when Y is with his foster family, he is calm, quiet and stable. He is described by Mrs. E as a kind, eager to please and calm little boy. He takes care of his stuff and is structured. [ 28 ] He is described by his father as loud and not listening to his authority. He can sometimes disturb and seek a lot of attention during the supervised visits.

He shows signs of insecurity or distress at school after a visit at home. [ 29 ] When the school intervention plan was elaborated, adults mentioned that the emotions were difficult for Y and that he needed to improve his sense of belonging, his identity and to shape his own personality. [ 30 ] After the visits, Y often expressed that he would like to be given more attention and that it is hard for him to feel satisfied. When over excited or distressed, he tends to defecate in his pants or be very loud. The parents tend to blame him whenever there is an

argument between him and X. [ 31 ] Z is a four year old girl with major issues. She has been followed at the Montreal Children Hospital in neurology, psychotherapy, speech therapy, audiology and occupational therapy. She received different services at CMR (Centre montérégien de réadaptation) and her condition has improved a lot. She has nine monthly appointments with different specialists. [ 32 ] A is three year old and expresses himself much more than the other three children. He still shows a language delay, but his speech has improved a lot.

He has been living with the foster family since the age of ten months. As for him, he as eight monthly appointments. [ 33 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] made a clinical analysis of the situation of X and Y and she expresses herself in her report as follows: [1] Since the last court order, many things have changed concerning the family situation. The parents worked hard to allow the children to settle in their respective foster families and to trust their capacity to take good care of their children.

Also, both foster families validate things with the parents, encourage the children to respect their authority, and let their family take an active

part in the children’s lives. The parents also participated in the school intervention plan and both children’s assessments. It is still difficult for the parents to answer the right need at the right time for the children, although we have to be conscious that it will always be their major issue and that this is due to their personal characteristics. However, the current situation with the visits does not answer the children’s needs in terms of attention, support and affection. They both want to have better moments with their parents.

The parents are also aware of their difficulties in answering all the children’s needs at the same time, due to their personal characteristics, age and interests. [ 34 ] She recommends that Y and X have separate visits with their parents, so they can fully answer their children needs and satisfy their feelings, which cannot be done in presence of the siblings.

She knows that it is important for the children to see each other but she recommends to reduce the frequency of the contacts. [ 35 ] For A and Z, she believes that if they eventually return to their parents’ home they will be exposed, as their siblings, to the neglect which caused emotional, cognitive and behavioural issues, as it has been concluded by the professionals. [ 36 ] From her point of view, the parents has difficulties understanding the children’s needs. During the visits, the children seek the help and support of the parents, but they do not receive answers to their requests.

For example, Z went to see her mother with a book and the mother asked her if she wanted her to read the book.

Z said yes but the mother did not read it and went outside with the children. [ 37 ] She believes that even if hard work with the parents, would bring some changes, we have to question their whole capacity. [2] They may have a certain competency in being able to provide structure for a short period of time, to have a fun time with their children, and to demonstrate their implication; although their personal characteristics, and their personal history, make it difficult for them to achieve their potential. We are at the frontier between what they can do and what they cannot do.

We tried different approaches, with different strategies, even with different caseworkers, without any major changes. We believe that modeling is no longer required in the daily life environment. We should give priority to keeping a bond between them and their children. We believe that having a positive bond, without the pressure of being observed, the need to do more and better, and to impress the caseworkers, they would be able to have more quality time with their children.

The parents should receive advice concerning the development of the children and how to interact with them, instead of trying to do things they cannot do. We think that the capacity of the parents does not allow them to answer all the children’s needs, which resulted in constant failure for them. We ask them to take on responsibilities that their capacity cannot. We have no doubt as to the love that both parents have for their children and that they will do as much as they can to offer love, security and affection to them.

But we have to be realistic; that the milieu capable of this cannot be theirs. [ 38 ] She recommends that A and Z be entrusted to their foster family until their majority. She thinks that with proper support and mutual understanding, the parents and the foster family could form a team in the best interest of the children. [ 39 ] She recommends to modify the frequency of the visits with the parents, considering that Z has nine appointments every month with specialists and A eight. [ 40 ] She suggests two visits a month with their parents and at one of them, their siblings would be present.

As for X and Y, they could see their parents once a week at “Le Petit Pont”. [ 41 ] X has sometimes mentioned that her parents look more after the youngest ones, during the visits. She believes that she can benefit from contacts with her mother alone without supervision. Even if she has difficulty sharing her time between the four children during the visit, Mrs. B is adequate and affectionate. Mother and daughter could spend good moments together. [ 42 ] This could not be possible with the father present because he is often aggressive, denigrating and can seek conflicts.

The mother has no control over him so she would not be able to supervise the contacts. Y could also benefit of such contacts with his mother, if he wishes. [ 43 ] On cross examination, Mrs [Social Worker 1] mentions that it’s impossible to do modeling with the father, because he does not recognize the grounds for the Director’s intervention. He cannot establish a positive help relationship with any social worker. [ 44 ] She mentions that since February 2017, the services for Z have been increased at the day care at three hours a day to prepare her for school next September.

A also receives ergo, speech and physio therapies.

[ 45 ] From February to May, twelve visits had been planned. The mother came at ten of them and the father at four. The father refused to participate into the elaboration of the intervention plan. The mother collaborated, asked questions about the children and signed the documents when needed. [ 46 ] The mother says she would accept a placement for six months for her two youngest children to work on their reintegration at home. She asks for more contacts with her children without supervision. [ 47 ] She wishes that the contacts take place at home.

She admits that they ceased to be at home because of the attitude of her husband, which did not get along with Mrs [Social Worker 1]. She says that she had been attending all the scholar meetings at X school. She would like to do things with her two oldest children alone. If they come home, she will make sure the father is not there. [ 48 ] She would like that the services for A and Z be provided in Longueuil so she can go with them to the C.M.R. However, if it’s not possible, she agrees that they receive the services in Granby. She knows all the recommendations of the specialists and follows them.

She has always been present at the visits with her children except when her father died. [ 49 ] She says that she is ready to separate from the father if she can have her children home. She is ready to collaborate with the Director and follow the recommendations of the specialists. [ 50 ] The father briefly testified. He denied being aggressive towards the social worker, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], but admitted not getting along with her.

He denied the existence of a visits calendar and admitted refusing to go at the Director’s office to see his children. [ 51 ] He would finally admit being impatient and aggressive towards Mrs. [Social Worker 1] but not intentionally. He denies having denigrated his daughter and told her that he understood his dog better than her.

Decision [ 52 ] The Court has to decide if A and Z should be entrusted to a foster family until their majority or if they should be entrusted for a short period of time to be eventually reintegrated with their parents. [ 53 ] The Court must also decide, for X and Y, whether it is necessary to modify the conclusion concerning the contacts in order not to specify a minimum.

For A and Z [ 54 ] Since the last Court order, the parents worked hard to trust the foster family which takes good care of their children and to allow them to settle in their family. [ 55 ] The father does not yet recognize the situation and the reasons of the placement. He still refuses to collaborate. The mother is more positive. However, she did not follow the recommendations, she received for the last seven years.

She maintained wanting to seek help for her personal difficulties but never got into the process of referral. [ 56 ] Even if there have been some improvements during the visits at home, the parents still have difficulty to identify stuff which can be unsafe for the children and what needs to be modified. [ 57 ] They had difficulties understanding the needs of the children and properly respond to then. They are not able to adjust to the changing needs of their children.

They have difficulties to organize the visits and keep the children interested. [ 58 ] During the visits, the social worker has to regularly make interventions, because the father denigrates the mother or the foster family. [ 59 ] The situation of the family has been known for over seven years. The oldest children have been exposed to neglect which caused emotional, cognitive and behavioural issues, clearly identified by professionals.

It is difficult to put this element aside when the Court has to decide for the youngest ones. [ 60 ] Even if the parents have a certain competency and are able to provide structure during short period visits and have good time with their children, considering that A and Z have special needs, they would not be able to assume their responsibility on a regular basis. [ 61 ] The history with the older children shows the inability of the parents to answer the needs of their children.

Trying to reintegrate of A and Z into the familiar environment, would put them in a situation of failure as parents and would not be in the best interest of the children. [ 62 ] There is no doubt that they love their children and they do all they can to show them their love. The foster family accepts to collaborate with the parents and bring changes if necessary. With proper support and mutual understanding the parents and the foster family could form a team in the best interest of the children. [ 63 ] The children are well identified in their foster family and they both develop well.

The maximum delay of placement is expired. [ 64 ] The Court is of the opinion that it would be unrealistic to believe that the familial reintegration is possible. A and Z need to live in a stable and secure environment where they will receive answers to their needs. In their best interest they should remain in these foster family. [ 65 ] Even if the children remain for a long term in their foster family, they should benefit from regular contacts with their parents and siblings. For X and Y

[ 66 ] Since the last Court order, it is difficult for the parents to share their time and attention between the four children. They are aware that Y requires structure, routine and coherence. The presence of the three other children makes it difficult for him to obtain the attention he needs. [ 67 ] X likes to see her brothers and sister, but she feels she is being left aside. [ 68 ] The Court is of the opinion that the children should maintain regular contacts with their parents especially with their mother.

The Director should organize more contact with her, knowing that the children require more. [ 69 ] X’s lawyer is asking that her client be evaluated for her language issue and that the Director of Youth Protection provide her with the psychological follow-up recommended one year ago by the psychologist. [ 70 ] The Court believes that the last order was not complied with.

The Director should have provided her with the health services she needs, but did not. [ 71 ] X likes to live with her grand-mother but the latter needs to be supported to understand X’s issues, to be able to intervene adequately and to help her. [ 72 ] Y’s lawyer does not require more contact for his client, who seems satisfied of seeing his parents once a week at the Petit Pont. [ 73 ] The Court believes that it is difficult to rule on the frequency and modalities of contacts in the case of children placed until their majority because the needs and their availability will change from time to time. [ 74 ] X and Y lived with their parents longer than A and Z.

They are attached to them even though they suffered from negligence. [ 75 ] The Court believes that it would be in their best interest that the contacts should be fixed upon the consent of the parties. Knowing that an agreement is not possible for now and that the father opposed all interventions and suggestions of the Director of Youth Protection, the Court will fix a minimum for the contacts.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 76 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 77 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the children X, Y, A and Z are still compromised; For X and Y: [ 78 ] MAINTAINS the placement of X to the foster family of her grandmother Mrs. D and Mr. F, until her majority; [ 79 ] MAINTAINS the placement or Y to the foster family of Mrs.

E, until his majority; [ 80 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 81 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures to correct the situation and more particularly that they get involved in the intervention plan; [ 82 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and Y with their parents be upon agreement between the parties. If an agreement is not possible the visits will be at least three times a month. The visits will be supervised when both parents are present.

The Court authorizes unsupervised visits with the mother at least once a month; [ 83 ] ORDERS that the children receive health services pertaining to their respective needs, more specifically that X undergo a speech language assessment and that the recommendations be followed; [ 84 ] ORDERS that X receives psychological support for a period of two years; [ 85 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign the required documents if they are unable to obtain the authorization of the parents, in a short delay; [ 86 ] ENTRUST the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of this judgment; [ 87 ] THE WHOLE until their majority; For A and Z: [ 88 ] ENTRUST the children , A and Z , to their foster family, Mrs.

G and Mr. H, until their majority; [ 89 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 90 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in measures to correct the situation more particularly that they get involved in the intervention plan; [ 91 ] ORDERS that the contacts between A and Z with their parents be upon agreement between the parties. If an agreement is not possible the visits will be at least three times a month. The visits will be supervised when both parents are present;

[ 92 ] ORDERS that A to attend a day care; [ 93 ] ORDERS that the children receive health services for their specific needs at the C.M.R. (Centre montérégien de réadaptation); [ 94 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign the required documents if the parents do not sign them in a short delay; [ 95 ] ENTRUST the situation of the children A and Z to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of this judgment; [ 96 ] THE WHOLE until their majority: __________________________________ MIREILLE ALLAIRE, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam Couillard Attorney for the child X Me Joanie Samson Attorney for the child Y Me Nancy Côté Attorney for the children A & Z Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the declarant Me Kathleen O’Meara Attorney for the mother Me Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the father