2011 QCCQ 6128, 2011 QCCQ 6128

Protection de la jeunesse — 111161 2011 QCCQ 6128 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000341-104 DATE: March 15, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A working in city A Applicant -and- X, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district A Child -and- A, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city C, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review and extension of a decision according to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born on […], 2009. [ 2 ] The parents were present and represented by a lawyer. The child was not present but was represented by a lawyer. [ 3 ] On March 29, 2010, Leduc J. declared the security and development of the child endangered in regards to paragraph 38(b) (neglect) and paragraph 38(e) (physical abuse). The facts were admitted at the time. It was decided that the child be entrusted to a foster home for a period of six months. The mother agreed to submit herself to a psychological assessment. [ 4 ] Leduc J. reviewed that judgment on September 2010, in accordance with

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . Although the mother cooperated well with Youth Protection workers, she still needed help to manage her anger. Leduc J. ordered the placement of the child for another six months and anger management therapy for the mother. [ 5 ] The following facts are admitted or proven on a balance of probabilities. THE FACTS [ 6 ] Since the last Court hearing, the mother has maintained regular and significant contacts with her daughter. [ 7 ] The child's health is fragile. The evidence shows that X has been hospitalized four times in the past six months.

During her last hospitalization in city D, which lasted a few weeks, the mother flew down to be at her daughter's bedside. At the beginning of her stay, the mother showed great ability and willingness to care for her sick daughter. However, after two weeks she became exhausted, impatient and rude towards the nursing staff as well as towards X. In fact, on one occasion she ripped X's clothes off and pressed her cheeks in an aggressive matter as she was giving her medication.

The next day, there was an incident during which the mother threw a toy across the room. [ 8 ] During the past six months, it appears the mother only attended three sessions of anger management therapy. Although she was fond of the therapist and was showing signs of progress, she didn't follow through. [ 9 ] It is also proven that the mother can be short tempered and quite aggressive when contradicted. On the morning of the hearing, the Court heard the mother in a violent verbal outrage.

It turns out the mother lashed out at the petitioner after receiving confirmation of the D.Y.P.'s orientation in regards to the present proceedings.

[ 10 ] Moreover, the mother's living situation is not stable. Since the last Court hearing the mother has moved several times and admits she is now living in a house not suitable for her daughter. She intends to move to her aunt's in city E. [ 11 ] For his part, the father saw his daughter only once in the past six months, on the eve of the hearing. He was supposed to visit his daughter in January, but never showed up at the airport. [ 12 ] The Court is convinced that the mother loves her daughter and that she does everything in her power to maintain the existing bond.

The mother also shows good abilities to care for her daughter for short periods of time. However, the preponderant evidence shows that the mother still has problems dealing with difficult or negative situations, which brings her to become aggressive, therefore putting her daughter's well being at risk. [ 13 ] Therefore, the Court considers that the child's situation remains endangered. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 14 ] In order to allow the mother time to recover her parental role by resolving her anger issues, the petitioner recommends that the placement of the child be extended for an additional six months.

The lawyers acting on behalf of the child and the mother are opposed to such a long period of placement. [ 15 ] In the present case, the child is 18 months old and has been placed in a foster family during the last 12 months. According to the law, the placement of a child of this age cannot exceed 12 months. The Court is not bound by the period of placement under

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act if it is expected that the child can return to his family on the short term. The spirit of the law is aimed at providing a child with a stable environment on a permanent basis. [ 16 ] The Court has no doubt of the mother's true engagement towards her child. Furthermore, the Court believes she possesses valuable skills in order to care for her daughter. However, her anger issues are hindering her capacity to care for her child on a daily basis.

Yet, Leduc J. highlighted this issue at the outset of her first judgment. [ 17 ] Although the Court is not willing to exclude the prospects of the child's returning to her natural environment, the mother must understand that time is of the essence. She has very little time to clearly demonstrate that she has addressed her anger and temper issues. Otherwise, more permanent measures to ensure the stability and security of X will have to be put in place. [ 18 ] The mother's commitment towards her daughter deserves support on the part of the D.Y.P.

The mother should be encouraged to pursue her anger management therapy. [ 19 ] The Court considers that a six months placement is a long period in X's life.

In that regard, the Court is of the opinion that a three month placement, which coincides with the Youth Court Division before the summer break is sufficient to verify the mother's true commitment towards her daughter. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS partially the petition; [ 22 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 2009, are endangered; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child remain in a foster family for a period of three months; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to X and her parents for a period of three months; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health services, more specifically as to the follow-up regarding her immune system; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection provide an individual psychological follow-up to the mother and ORDERS the mother to follow the said therapy; [ 27 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise and favour visit and access rights of the parents with the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the social worker; [ 29 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Stéphanie Lachance Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P.

M e Denis Trottier Legal Aid of city A Lawyer for the child M e Jacques Stuart Lawyer for the parents Date of hearing: March 8, 2011