2011 QCCQ 2423, 2011 QCCQ 2423

Protection de la jeunesse — 11156 2011 QCCQ 2423 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N° : 525-41-022988-109 DATE : January 21, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of: X Born […] 2003 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of January 21, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered October 1 st , 2010, entrusting the child to foster care for a period of six months with reintegration to her mother’s care during this period if the situation allowed.

Furthermore, that a social follow- up be maintained with the family for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motion are the following: • The child’s behaviour continues to deteriorate; • The child has trantrums and disruptive behaviour and is accusing the foster mother and the mother of hurting her; • On October 12, 2010, the child was transferred to another foster family; • This is the third foster family for the child since her placement in March 2010; • The child’s behaviour requires constant supervision; • The child is in the same foster family as her elder sibling Y and she has a bad influence on the latter; • The foster mother is overwhelmed with the child’s behaviour and is requesting that the child be removed from her care; • The child has maintained regular access with the parents. [ 4 ] On December 23, 2010, the Director of Youth Protection filed a motion for provisional compulsory foster care of the child in an institution operating a rehabilitation centre for a maximum period of thirty days.

This motion was heard on December 28, 2010, and the honourable judge Taya Di Pietro ordered that the child be entrusted to her mother’s care, along with other measures and set the merits of the case for January 21, 2011. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the Court order interim measures for a period of three months, entrusting the child to her mother’s care. That the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and that there be an interdiction of contacts between the child and her biological father, Mr.

A, until he has been assessed by the Director.

[ 6 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures, whether they be interim or final measures. The mother testifies that the child is doing well in her care and does not have any temper tantrums. The mother also states that the child’s behaviour in school has improved. The mother testifies that the family has started working with an educator from the Family Preservation Program and that the reintegration of her daughter Y has started. [ 7 ] The mother confirms that the child has had two contacts with her biological father.

She says that the youth worker had explained to her that since X is a biracial child, she needed to learn about her heritage. However, the mother says that Mr. A is not comfortable with the implication of DYP. She feels that she can adequately supervise the visits between the child and her biological father and says that X is asking to have other contacts with her biological father. [ 8 ] As for the father, he admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees for X to be entrusted to her mother’s care. Concerning the contacts between the child and Mr.

A, he considers that they must be supervised by DYP, after Mr. A has met with the youth worker. [ 9 ] Counsel for the child admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion. Me Du Sablon considers that it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up until October 1 st , 2011. The child is with the mother since December 29, 2010, and no incidents have been reported. As for the contacts between the child and Mr.

A, they should be supervised by DYP and take place only if the child asks to see her biological father. [ 10 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [social worker 1], human relation's agent, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The child’s behaviours have improved since she reintegrated her mother’s care on December 29, 2010. The mother collaborates fully with DYP and the educator from the Family Preservation Program and appears to be meeting her daughter’s needs. [ 11 ] The psychological assessment of the child was conducted by Ms.

Diane McClean, psychologist, on January 12, 2011. The psychologist noticed that the child presents as somewhat younger than her years, has immature articulation and grammatical expression, but understands well and communicates responses effectively. She also has attention difficulties and satiates early on tasks which require sustained effort. The psychologist concluded as follows: X is a young girl with very poor self esteem and a negative self image. She does not like her physical appearance and describes herself as ugly.

She demonstrates a lack of trust, does not form attachments easily and reveals a void in affect, particularly as it relates to a range of emotions. She tends to avoid feelings and externalizes blame. X is impulsive and distractible, which causes behaviour difficulties as she is not given to preplanning and reflection. She can be argumentative and strong willed. In addition, X has articulation and grammatical patterns of a younger child. She becomes lost with lengthy explanations, partly due to inattention.

She is given to impulsivity and lacks preplanning and reflection strategies. [ 12 ] Furthermore, the psychologist explains that the child has recently been informed that Mr. B, whom she has known as her father, and is the biological father of two of her siblings, is not her biological father, but rather her stepfather.

This is something the child has been questioning for some time as she has noticed differences between her appearance and that of her siblings, being a biracial child. [ 13 ] The psychologist recommends, amongst other things, that the adults interacting with the child should be informed of her profile of distractibility and need to move. For the child to have clear guidelines and expectations and to have the child repeat that which she is asked to do. [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up until October 1 st , 2011.

The Family Preservation Program is involved with the family and visits the home on a regular basis. The plan was always for the child to reintegrate the mother's home and therefore interim measures are not warranted. [ 15 ] As for the contacts between the child and her biological father, they will need to be supervised, after the youth worker has met with Mr. A. Many factors need to be taken into account, the fact that Mr. A has a criminal record, a pending case in front of the Criminal court, that he has been a street gang member and last but not least, that he has never been involved in his daughter’s life.

Therefore, it will be important for DYP, not only to assess his situation, but also to evaluate his commitment towards the child on a long term basis. [ 16 ] Meeting her biological father has certainly answered certain of the child’s question as to her heritage; however, before the child becomes emotionally involved with this person, it must be clear as to the role he is to play in her life.

That being said, it would be beneficial to consult with the psychologist who assessed the child as to the best way for her to renew contact with her biological father. [ 17 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 18 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 21 ] REVIEWS the order rendered October 1 st , 2010; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the father take the necessary steps to address his personal issues and inform the Director of his therapeutic

progress; [ 25 ] ORDERS an interdiction of contacts between the child and Mr.

A, until such time that his situation has been assessed by DYP and if approved by the Director, that the frequency and modality of such contacts be determined and supervised by DYP; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child not exposed to any form of physical, verbal or emotional violence; [ 27 ] ORDERS that all baby-sitters enlisted by the mother be approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to submit to random substance testing; [ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents agree to submit to random substance testing; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother is receiving the services of an educator from the Family Preservation Program; [ 31 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family until October 1 st , 2011; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 33 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on January 25, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Claudine Du Sablon (Counsel for the child) Me Judith Shapiro Knight (Counsel for the mother) Me Alexandre Lenis (Counsel for the father) Date of hearing: January 21, 2011