2019 QCCQ 15621, 2019 QCCQ 15621

Protection de la jeunesse — 195048 2019 QCCQ 15621 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001158-187; 455-41-001159-185; DATE : May 23, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2017 Y Born on […], 2017 [ SOCIAL WORKER 1 ] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at […], district A; Applicant -and- A , […]; -and- B , […]; Children’s 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the order rendered on June 27, 2018, be revised. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared that the security and development of the children were compromised for the motives of neglect on a physical and educational level and serious risk of neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Tribunal entrusted the children to their maternal grandparents, taking notice of the Director’s intention to clarify a long-term plan for the children excluding their return to their parent’s care, authorizing supervised contacts with the parent as well as other measures, including a social follow up for a period of one year.

[ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and development of the children are still compromised for the same motives. [ 5 ] Because of the alleged new facts, the Director recommends that the protective measures be revised in order that the children remain entrusted to their maternal grandmother who has been recognized as a foster home, that supervised visits be authorized with the parents as well as lifting the said supervision according to the evolution of the situation, along with other measures including a social follow up for another period of one year. [ 6 ] At the hearing of May 23, 2019, the parents are present and not represented.

They are in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 7 ] The children’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence and reading the reports, recognizes that the parents have made some improvement but that the Director should have seized the Court before. He warrants for a shorter order.

Question in litigation [ 8 ] Do the recommended measures answer the needs of the children and are they in their best interest? evolution of the situation [ 9 ] At the last court hearing, the Director demonstrated that Y and X’s parents have limited parental capacity. [ 10 ] The parents recognized their limitations and intended to co-parent the children with the maternal grandparents to whom they were entrusted. [ 11 ] Since the last court order, the parents remained duly and actively involved with the children. [ 12 ] The parents gradually increased the frequency of visits with their children, which were supervised by the maternal grandmother. [ 13 ] Y and X appreciate their parents’ visits and created a strong bond with them. [ 14 ] The parents are starting to be more comfortable in caring for their children. [ 15 ] In December 2018, the children’s pediatrician noted that X was four to six months behind developmentally and that Y was two to four months behind as well. [ 16 ] Although the care and attention they receive are not undermined, it was decided that the children should attend daycare to help in their development. [ 17 ] Starting February 1, 2019, the children attended a family daycare on a full-time basis. [ 18 ] Since then, they made some progress but are still exhibiting delays. [ 19 ] On May 10 th , the children underwent a developmental evaluation. [ 20 ] The delays seen by the pediatrician were confirmed, particularly regarding their language and motor skills. [ 21 ] There are some hypothesis as to the origins of the delays.

They could be genetic and linked to the mother who presents with intellectual limitations, though she has not been diagnosed. [ 22 ] The mother is considering submitting to a cognitive evaluation. [ 23 ] An appointment has been made with the pediatrician to investigate further.

The children will be referred to hearing and neurology tests. [ 24 ] Although the mother has started to treat her anxiety with medication, she still has difficulty in managing stressful situations. [ 25 ] Even in court, the Tribunal has seen the father reassure the mother who was evidently stressed during the proceedings and having a hard time not showing it.

Change of orientation [ 26 ] When the delegate at the application of measures was assigned to this file, she started observing the parents with the children through her social follow-up. [ 27 ] At some time late fall, she came to some findings leading her to believe that there might be a possibility that the parents care by themselves for the children. [ 28 ] She said that her observation showed more capacity from the mother than what was said in the Report from Villa A filed by the Director at the last court hearing. [ 29 ] She also mentioned that the father was more comfortable with the children and vice versa and that he could take a more important role. [ 30 ] Despite the court order that took judicial notice that the Director would make a long-term plan for the children excluding their return to their parent’s care, the delegate, decided on her own to increase the frequency of the parents’ visits to twice a week for a

duration of 3 hours as of November 2018. [ 31 ] She said that the orientation of the file might have been hasty and that in her opinion, the parents showed more capacity than they were credited. [ 32 ] Without going back to court first, she started working with the parents with this new orientation. [ 33 ] A review meeting was held later on February 29 th , 2019.

The reviewer authorized this change of orientation. [ 34 ] On March 1, 2019, the parents moved in a 5 ½ apartment that had rooms to accommodate the children. [ 35 ] The motion to review that last court order was drafted on April 30, 2019. [ 36 ] The court held a hearing on May 23, 2019. [ 37 ] The Director is now asking to exceed the maximum duration of placements (art. 91.1 al.4 YPA) that will expire on June 19, 2019, pleading it is in the children’s best interest. decision [ 38 ] The Court is now faced with a situation that has taken a course that was never warranted by the Tribunal. [ 39 ] The Court should have been seized in November 2018, when the delegate made her findings and before visits were increased. [ 40 ] Instead, the Tribunal is faced with a fait accompli and must decide on the orientation after the fact. [ 41 ] Unfortunately, the Court cannot endorse this new orientation from the Director. [ 42 ] Despite some progress made by the parents, they have demonstrated parental limitations and it is yet to be discovered to what degree regarding the mother. [ 43 ] Furthermore, it appears that the children will be having special needs. [ 44 ] When the Court evaluates if it is possible to return children to their parents (art.4 YPA), it must evaluate the situation of the children considering their specific needs (art. 3 YPA). [ 45 ] The Court is of the opinion that these parents do not have the parental capacity to answer their children’s specific needs. [ 46 ] The parents are not equipped to face the challenges that the children will face on a day to day basis. [ 47 ] Although the Court recognizes that the parents made some improvement in their parental skills, it is not enough to answer the specific needs of their children. [ 48 ] Coming to this finding, the Court had the difficult task to explain to the parents that it will not be possible for the children to return to their care. [ 49 ] The Court explained to the parents that the good thing that came out of their extended access to their children was that they created an emotional bond with them that would be an asset for these children who will have to face many challenges in their lives. [ 50 ] The Court is convinced that X and Y can count on very loving and caring parents.

But not as primary caregivers. [ 51 ] The Court overrides the duration of placement and render a short order of six months to allow the Director clarify a long-term plan for the children that will consider the parents’ involvement but without considering a return to their care. [ 52 ] Hopefully, the children will remain with their maternal grandparents who answer their needs and will allow the parents’ involvement. [ 53 ] The present judgment completes and confirms each and every observations that were made on the bench in presence of the parties.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT : GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are still in danger; PROLONGS the Court order rendered on June 27, 2018 in the present file; ORDERS that the children X and Y be entrusted to the foster family of Ms.

C, maternal grandmother of the children; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to clarify a long-term plan for the children, excluding their return to their parent’s care; AUTHORIZES in the children’s favour, supervised contacts with their parents, by the Director or by a third party designated by the Director, according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth protection;

ORDERS that the children receive all healthcare and services they need; ORDERS that the parents participate actively to the measures ordered, namely concerning the intervention plan and the social follow- up; ORDERS that a person, working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their parents for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Sarah-Maude Renaud Counsel for the DYP M e René Sévigny Counsel for the children Date of written judgment : August 7, 2019 Exhibits deposited : D-5