2019 QCCQ 17405, 2019 QCCQ 17405

Protection de la jeunesse — 198803 2019 QCCQ 17405 COURT OF QUEBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] No.: 505-41-009477-193 DATE: November 14, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE LYNE MORIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of [Region A] Applicant -and- X, born on […], 2011 Child -and- A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ JM2505 WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of any information that would allow a child or a child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (ss. 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child are in danger due to neglect of health care and on educational level. [ 2 ] As principal measures, the Director recommends that the child remain in her family environment and that the mother be ordered to report to the Director every two weeks on the measures she is applying to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger.

The Director proposes measures of assistance for a period of one year and asks that the child receive all the health services required by her state, including services from CRDI and a medical examination, including an eye and hearing examination. [ 3 ] The mother failed to cooperate and was not in court on May 23, June 27 or September 17, 2019.

The mother was present at the hearing today. [ 4 ] On June 27, 2019, in the mother’s absence, the Court declared that the child’s security and development were in danger due to the mother’s neglect of the child’s health care and education. [ 5 ] The mother and the child’s lawyer agree with the measures sought. FAMILY SITUATION [ 6 ] The child has no paternal filiation declared on her birth certificate. [ 7 ] The mother is in the process of divorcing Mr. B. [ 8 ] She lives alone with her daughter. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS [ 9 ] In June 2018, the Director retained a report concerning the child.

[ 10 ] The Director tried to conduct an assessment, but the mother did not cooperate. Various means were used to access the mother. The caseworker went to the child’s bus stop to meet with her. [ 11 ] On September 21, 2018, an appointment was scheduled with the mother, but she had no time for the caseworker. On October 3, the mother was not at home. [ 12 ] The caseworker met with the child at school. The child was agitated and had difficulty explaining her daily routine at her mother’s home.

She said, however, that her mother yells a lot, and she talked about some of the rules at home. [ 13 ] At school, the child is aggressive with her peers and displays sexualized behaviour. The special educator at [School A] said that the child was not available for learning between August 29 and October 26, 2018. The child is regularly removed from the group. Her attention span and ability to concentrate are very limited. The child is oppositional, disruptive and talks nonstop.

She constantly seeks attention and her behaviour is unpredictable. [ 14 ] In the fall of 2018, the child was “provisionally” diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. A speech-language assessment was also conducted and revealed major difficulties with comprehension and expression. [ 15 ] On November 22, 2018, the caseworker met with the mother to inform her of the situation.

The mother explained that she had trouble communicating with the school due to the language barrier. [ 16 ] The mother acknowledges that she waited several months before signing the authorization for her daughter’s psychological assessment. Moreover, the professionals could not send the mother the recommendations to implement for the child because they could not contact her. [ 17 ] Should there be an emergency involving the child, the school will not be able to contact the mother. [ 18 ] The mother missed both the meeting to discuss her daughter’s intervention plan and the one to review her needs.

The school principal had to go to the mother’s home to explain to her that the child had been transferred into a class adapted to her needs. [ 19 ] The child’s new school is better adapted to the child’s situation. [ 20 ] On June 3, 2019, the caseworker again went to the school bus stop to meet with the mother. She refused to talk and explained that she was planning to move to Town A. [ 21 ] On August 30, [School B] confirmed that the child was enrolled and attending the school.

The child said that she lives at the same location. [ 22 ] The Director did not succeed in obtaining the mother’s collaboration, despite several attempts. [ 23 ] On October 21, Dr. Marie-Ève Boucher, a psychologist at the Centre A, explained in a letter to the caseworker that it was not at all necessary to reassess the child given the mother’s failure to cooperate. The mother’s participation is required to confirm the child’s diagnosis of an intellectual disability.

The ADHD assessment does not appear to be clinically relevant. [ 24 ] In short, the psychologist believes that a second intellectual assessment of the child would produce very similar results, perhaps even lower than those of the 2018 assessment. However, should the mother decide to cooperate with the Director and the assessment process, or should the child be removed from her family environment, it would then be pertinent to reassess her intellectual ability and adaptive behaviours.

The psychologist is concerned about the impact of the maternal environment on the child’s development. [ 25 ] On November 5, 2019, the mother finally agreed to meet with the caseworker at her home, because the dwelling is now in her name. The mother explained that before she was not receiving mail at her address and that she did not open the door to bailiffs. [ 26 ] The last year has been difficult for the mother because of her health. She has breast cancer and has undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

The mother gave the caseworker documents showing that she was cooperating with the school. [ 27 ] The CRDI is trying to offer the child services but due to the difficulty communicating with the mother, the services have been delayed. [ 28 ] The mother has agreed to cooperate with the various services offered by the Director.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the application; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger for the following reasons: ➢ 38 b) 1° ii : neglect of health care; ➢ 38 b) 1° iii : neglect on the educational level; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother report every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or her child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger, and she will do so by calling the phone number of the social worker she was given;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the mother takes an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, namely that she collaborates with the intervention plan of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child receives all the care and health services required by her state, namely, a follow up care with the CRDI, a complete medical examination including for vision and hearing; [ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees that the D.Y.P. make surprise visits at her home; [ 37 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to communicate with the child’s school to receive updates on her situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS to the mother to give access to the child upon request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of [Region A] for the execution of the measures ordered; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months. __________________________________ Lyne Morin , J.C.Q.

Mtre Marie-Ève Garceau Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Karyn Brown Counsel for the child Mtre Kathleen O'Meara Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: Judgment signed: June 27, September 17 and November 14, 2019 December 12, 2019