2012 QCCQ 13350, 2012 QCCQ 13350

Protection de la jeunesse — 125063 2012 QCCQ 13350 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-022988-109 DATE: October 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2003 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 5, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered December 7, 2011, entrusting the child to her mother’s care with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of four months. On April 19 and June 5, 2012, postponements were granted and interim measures, entrusting the child to her mother’s care, were ordered. [ 3 ] On June 13, 2012, DYP filed a motion for revision and provisional compulsory foster care following an incident that occurred on June 11, 2012, whereby the child became aggressive towards her three year old sibling and could not be calmed down.

The police was contacted by the mother for assistance and on June 12 the child was placed in a rehabilitation centre. [ 4 ] On June 14, 2012, the Court granted the motion and ordered provisional measures ordering that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre until July 20, 2012.

At that date, the Court declared still compromised the security and development of the child and, at the request of the parties, rendered interim measures maintaining the child in a rehabilitation center until October 5, 2012. [ 5 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child remained under the care of the mother; • The child was reported to exhibit aggressive behaviours at home with her siblings; • The child was withdrawn at school and her hygiene is of concern; • The child was reported to be often late and absent from school; • The mother acknowledged that the child was often late to school as she struggles in the morning with her two youngest children; • The child reported that her mother hit her on one occasion; • On January 26, 2012, the child came to school with three scratches on her face;

• It was unclear who was responsible for the scratches and in what context.

One incident was reported where the mother would have accidentally scratched the child’s face and another occasion where it would have been the child’s sister, Cassidy; • The mother reported that the child’s behaviour is challenging; • The mother also reported the child was bullied in school; • The child regularly visited the father; • The mother has not maintained the gains with regards to her parenting; • Since January 2012, the mother has a new partner in her life; • The child’s sibling reported that the mother’s former partner, C, tried to break into the mother’s window on one occasion; • The father reported that, the mother continues to make negative comments about the father and his partner; • The child feels caught between both her parents; • The father completed a parenting program called [...] and also the Parenting Skills program; • The father completed a drug program at Pavillon A; • The father did not attend any random drug testing, in spite of having been asked to do so on at least seven different occasions. [ 6 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, with gradual reintegration to her mother’s care after two months, if the situation allows.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 7 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and consent to the measures recommended by DYP. [ 8 ] The father wishes to have extended contacts with his daughter and for the Court to allow is spouse, C, to be present during these contacts.

Currently, the father receives his children every Sunday. [ 9 ] The Court is informed that the father has another child with C, that this child is placed in foster care and that the contacts between the mother and the child are supervised by DYP. [ 10 ] The mother wishes for X to come back home as soon as possible. She receives her daughter from Thursday after school until Sunday morning when the child goes to her father for the day. The mother does not wish for C to be present when her children visit their father. [ 11 ] Counsel for the child informs the Court that X wishes to be entrusted to her mother’s care.

However, she reports doing well at her unit. [ 12 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], human relations’ agent, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that X’s behaviour is difficult and that she can be aggressive towards her mother and her siblings. The family receives the services of an educator at the mother’s home every Thursday evening. Furthermore, the child has started an individual therapy and will be receiving art therapy at school. [ 13 ] The child is attending Elementary school A.

A letter, dated May 30, 2012, was filed as exhibit D-3 from the Elementary Resource Department A. This letter outlines a number of concerns, ranging from the child’s lunches being poor, to her hygiene being a constant concern and on one occasion, her having fingernail scratches along side her face. Furthermore, that the child was often late or absent from school.

However, the youth worker spoke with the school authorities in September 2012 and they reported that X is well dressed, her lunches are sufficient and she attends school on time. [ 14 ] The evidence reveals that there remain many concerns around the parents' abilities to answer to all of their daughter’s needs. The father’s drug use remains of concerns since he has not presented himself to many of the drug tests that were requested by DYP.

However, he receives his children every Sunday and collaborates with the youth worker. [ 15 ] In January 2012, the educator, Ms. [Social Worker 2], reported that the home of the mother was messy, including the children’s bedrooms and that the mother was short tempered in her tone with both herself and the children.

The mother explained to the delegate that she was pregnant from her former partner and that she lost the baby in December 2011.The mother is now receiving the services of an educator every Thursday evening and it is reported that the mother has made some gains and that the apartment is clean. [ 16 ] The mother's choice of partners is also of concern. The children reported that C, the mother's former partner had exhibited violent behaviour. In September 2012, the mother asked her live-in spouse, Mr. C, to leave due to his intravenous drugs use.

Therefore, it will be essential for DYP to meet with any adult living in the mother's home or who are in contact with the children on a regular basis. [ 17 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, with reintegration to her mother’s care after two months if the situation allows. The parents will need to collaborate with DYP in their daughter’s best interest.

The father must present himself to all his drug tests and the mother must show that she is able to address X’s behavioural issues and meet her social and medical needs. [ 18 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised.

[ 19 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT renders the following final measures: [ 20 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre for a period of six months, with gradual reintegration to the mother’s care after two months if the situation allows; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by her situation and more particularly, an individual therapy for as long as recommended by the therapist; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from the services of [center A]; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to have access to all pertinent information from the treating professionals working with the family; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS strongly that the mother participate in individual counselling; [ 26 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 27 ] ORDERS the mother to inform immediately DYP of any person living in the home; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that DYP meet with any person living in the mother's home and RECOMMENDS that the mother encourage this person to meet with the youth worker; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the family continue to benefit from the services of an educator, for as long as deemed necessary by DYP; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and Ms.

C be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 32 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the child not exposed to any verbal or physical violence; [ 33 ] ORDERS the father to undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent to undergo random drug testing; [ 34 ] ORDERS the mother to take the necessary step to renew the child’s medicare card; [ 35 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of one year; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 37 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 11, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Daniel Bouchard Counsel for the child Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Alexandre Lenis Counsel for the father

Dates of hearing: July 20 and October 5, 2012