r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 12660

Protection de la jeunesse — 165524 2016 QCCQ 12660 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-00005042-166 DATE: June 29, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2011 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On March 8, 2016, a judgment intervenes declaring that the security and the development of the child X are in danger in reason of health care neglect, serious risk of neglect and psychological ill-treatment.

Various measures of aid and counsel are put in place for a year, while maintaining the child in her parent’s care. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks a revision of this order, alleging notably that the mother’s mental health issues impede her from assuming her daughter’s specific needs. Within a 9 month order providing protective measures, the Director prays that the Court entrust the child to her father and provide for supervision of the contacts with her mother. [ 3 ] The parents consign their admissions.

They further agree to the orientation proposed. [ 4 ] The child’s attorney declares a legal mandate and in view of the evidence, also confirms consenting to the conclusions. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] X resides with her parents. She remains challenged by medical issues which require that she receive a scheduled response to her needs, notably in regards to a catheter and colostomy in place. [ 7 ] Her mother is her primary caregiver as the father is less present in regards to his employment. [ 8 ] The mother fails to cooperate with the intervention and shows increasing opposition to all services and counsel.

She fails to perceive her child’s delays and refuses to pursue the educational program destined to stimulate X. No changes are made as to the routine, stimulation and care given to X and this, in spite of the caseworker’s interventions. The mother tends to victimize herself. [ 9 ] The mother maintains a symbiotic relationship with her daughter, who requires specific supervision and care in relation to her health issues.

Despite this, the mother fails to consistently respect the medical instructions in place to ensure the preservation of her daughter’s renal function, namely changing her catheter on a specific timetable. She admits being sometimes too tired to wake up during the night to change her daughter’s catheter. [ 10 ] It is important to note that in the past, this contributes to a renal infection requiring that the child be hospitalized.

This situation is also part of the foundation of the health care neglect determined by the Court in the last judgment. [ 11 ] The conjugal relationship remains strained and conflicts occur regularly. X is aware of this dynamic and is witness to

altercations between her parents. [ 12 ] Although the father is cooperative and open to the interventions, his acceptance of a secondary role in his daughter’s life contributes to the dysfunctional family dynamic. The father now realizes this and makes efforts to assume his parental responsibilities. He starts setting rules and a routine for his daughter, but is circumvented by the mother. [ 13 ] Both the father and the caseworker expressing concerns as to X’s safety, different plans are discussed, including entrusting her to other family members during the day.

The mother refuses this orientation and becomes overwrought. Repeated police interventions are necessary in reason of the mother’s reactions, resulting her being accompanied to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. [ 14 ] The father assumes the care of his daughter and takes the appropriate recourse to ensure her being taken care of while he is at work. [ 15 ] Shortly thereafter, the father undertakes divorce proceedings and seeks the custody of X.

Such proceedings are ongoing. [ 16 ] The mother remains hospitalized in psychiatry until May 25 th in virtue of a Court order, including an obligation that she takes the medication prescribed for her.

No specific diagnosis is specified to the caseworker. [ 17 ] The mother is presently residing in a woman’s shelter. [ 18 ] On May 26, 2016, the Court renders a provisional order entrusting the child to her father and further ordering that her contacts with her mother be in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director. [ 19 ] The mother receives ongoing mental health services. [ 20 ] Since her hospitalization, the child only has telephone contacts with her mother. X verbalizes that her mother hurt her and that she is scared that she will return home.

As to visitation, she states preferring only speaking to her on the phone. [ 21 ] Supervised access has yet to commence as the caseworker seeks to meet with the mother individually in order to

schedule contacts and discuss conditions of such. [ 22 ] Since having the full care of his daughter, the father demonstrates being able to be proactive in ensuring her needs. He seeks services to support him in his parental responsibilities (educator, family aid from CLSC). X has commenced daycare and will be soon on a full-time basis. The father undertakes steps in regards to preparing her entering school as of September, specifically to in view of her medical needs. [ 23 ] X is evolving positively and making strides in regards to her developmental delays. [ 24 ] The mother testifies at the hearing.

She confirms her agreement with the orientation sought and her intention to work with the Director of Youth Protection and pursue her mental health follow-up. Her intention is to eventually find an apartment and work towards open access with her daughter. [ 25 ] The mother further attributes blame on the Director of Youth Protection for the present situation, stating that taking her daughter from her care was like ‘’killing her’’. She considers having lost everything – her daughter, her husband and her home.

She remains distraught and overwhelmed by the separation with her daughter. [ 26 ] The mother has neither resources nor a support system. Her husband still remains available to help her. [ 27 ] The evidence demonstrates that the measures put in place in virtue of the preceding judgment are not sufficient to stem the situation of endangerment. [ 28 ] X’s vulnerabilities are substantial in reason of her age and her specific health needs. The mother’s perceptions and opposition to the interventions are an impediment to the changes required to ensure X’s security and development.

Furthermore, the symbiotic mother/daughter relationship and family dynamic create an environment little conducive to X evolving positive various spheres (independence, socialization skills). [ 29 ] The mother is presently stabilizing her personal situation but remains overwhelmed by the changes in her life. Although she states a willingness to cooperate with social services, this seems in stark contradiction with her perceptions of victimization at their hands.

This, in conjunction with her instability and mental health issues, dictate the supervision of the contacts with her daughter. [ 30 ] The Court permits the lifting of such supervision on a total or partial basis, depending on the evolution of the situation and following mutual agreement between the parties.

Such an evolution should necessarily include the mother actively and sincerely participating in the intervention and her mental health follow-up, as well as offering access to the health care professionals to verify her assiduity and compliance to recommendations. [ 31 ] After taking into consideration the parties' admissions as well as the documentary evidence, the Court considers that the allegations in the proceeding are proven to its satisfaction and furthermore, give rise to the measures sought. [ 32 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the motion for revision of a court decision; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her father;

[ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision of contacts between the child and her mother on a partial or total basis, depending on the evolution of the situation, the whole following agreement between the parties; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically in person to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is endangered; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the child receives the health services required by her situation, namely her medical follow-up; [ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother pursuit a follow-up for her mental health difficulties and respect the recommendations of the medical professionals; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 43 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 9 months; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Amélie St-Denis Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Malyka Jean-Baptiste Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 29, 2016