2016 QCCQ 3022, 2016 QCCQ 3022

Protection de la jeunesse — 161928 2016 QCCQ 3022 JA0510 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF […] «Youth Division»

N° : 505-41-007246-137 505-41-007247-135 505-41-007663-141 505-41-007664-149 DATE : April 25th 2016 BY THE HONORABLE MIREILLE ALLAIRE In the matter of the children: X (born on [...], 2005) Y (born on [...], 2008) Z (born on [...], 2013) A (born on [...], 2012) [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2] , in capacity authorized person by the Youth Protection Director Declarant and B, C, Parents of the children JUDGMENT Section 95(1) and 95(2) of the Youth Protection Act 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A. ] [ 1 ] An application for the review and the extension of a Court decision under section 95(1) and 95(2) of the Youth Protection Act has been submitted to the Court . [ 2 ] The applicant acting for the Youth Protection Director is seeking the review and the extension of the Court order rendered on September 4 th , 2013 for X and Y and November 3 rd , 2014 for Z and A on the basis of the following new facts:

a) Since the last court order the children have been maintained in their respective foster families;

b) The children X and Y saw their parents once a week at the [centre A];

c) The children A and Z saw their parents twice a week, once at the Director’s office and once at the [centre A] at the same time as their older siblings;

d) The parents came regularly and consistently to the visits;

e) The parents still do not acknowledge the several facts for the Director or different professionals, they minimize their difficulties and often do not acknowledge several facts observed by that the Director or different professionals;

f) The parents, mostly the father, made some inappropriate statement in front of the two older children blaming them for the placement of the two babies;

g) The father is often overwhelmed by his own emotions and cannot contain himself in front of the children, even when reminded to do so;

h) The mother is often passive and does not shield the children from theses inappropriate statements;

i) Following these statements, the two older children showed worrisome reactions in their foster family;

j) The parental capacity of the parents is somewhat limited, for instance they have difficulty integrating, generalizing and applying notions of different parental skills;

k) The father shows rigidity and difficulty to grasp abstract notions;

l) The two younger children did not show any distress when they were first separated from their parents, nor did they show distress at the end of the following visits;

m) The Director observed that the children A and Z do not rely on their parents during the visit, although they rely on the foster family to answer their needs;

n) The climate at home and the lack of stimulation led to delays in the development of each children, the children were able to achieve some developmental milestones since their placement in foster care;

o) The father has a medical follow-up with a psychiatrist;

p) The mother is on the waiting list for a follow-up at the CLSC;

q) On May 12 2015, the Court entrusted the child X to her grand-parents, Mrs D and Mr. E, where she evolves positively;

r) Y evolves positively in his foster family and is attached to his foster mother;

s) Y went to a summer camp and didn’t show any behavioural difficulties;

t) The mother had started a follow-up with the CLSC but did not pursue with the services (2 meetings); u) (…) paragraph struck

v) Since May 2015, the father missed half of the visits at the DYP’s office with the children;

w) At the beginning of August 2015, the mother informed our services that the father will not be present to the visits at the DYP’s office anymore;

x) The mother continues to be present to every visit with the children;

y) The difficulties of the parents remained the same since the last court order; [ 3 ] The mother, through her attorney, admits some of the allegations of the declaration but contests the conclusions of the declaration. [ 4 ] The father, through his attorney, admits some of the allegations of the declaration but contests also the conclusions. [ 5 ] The child X, through her counsel, admits some of the allegations of the declaration.

She prefers to return to live with her parents, but if she was to remain with her grandparents, she would request to have three unsupervised visits a week at her parent’s home and would ask that the contacts with her old foster family be favoured. [ 6 ] The child Y, through his attorney, admits some of the allegations of the declaration.

He prefers to return with his parents, but if he was to remain with the foster family, he would like more contacts with his parents and his siblings. [ 7 ] The children Z and A, through their attorney, ignore all of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the motion, because of their age. [ 8 ] By consent of the parties, the following reports are filed: D-2 Report to the court for each child, written by [Social Worker 1] and [Social Worker 3], dated April 27, 2015; D-3 Rapport résumé, Clinique d’évaluation du développement, Centre universitaire de santé McGill pour l’enfant A; D-4 Rapport de psychologie pédiatrique, Centre universitaire de santé McGill pour l’enfant A; D-5 Évaluation du département d’orthophonie, Centre universitaire de santé McGill pour l’enfant A; D-6 Département d’ergothérapie, Centre universitaire de santé McGill pour l’enfant A; D-7 Elementary school report card for X; D-8 Rapport d’observations pour la période du 30 janvier au 20 février 2015; D-9 Rapport d’observations pour la période du 24 octobre 2014 au 23 janvier 2015, Le [centre A];

D-10 Rapport d’observations pour la période du 27 février 2015 au 15 mai 2015, Le [centre A]; D-11 Report to the court for each child, written by [Social Worker 1] and [Social Worker 3], dated July 22 nd , 2015; D-12 Rapport d'observations du [centre A] D-13 Letter from CPE A D-14 Visits at the office with Z and A D-15 Letter from [School A] M-1 In a bundle: documents from La Vallée & associés dentist, Speech and Language Pathology follow up, [centre B] prescription, [centre B] demande de consultation M-2 – Speech Therapist report from June 18 th , 2015, written by Melanie Cohen Director of Youth Protection’s proof [ 9 ] In his testimony, the father indicates that he visits his children regularly, but he missed two visits.

He has seen X and Y every Friday at the [centre A] and A and Z twice a week, once at the [centre A] and once at the office of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] He submits that there is no reason to say that there was and that there is still a risk of negligence if their children return home. He says that the social worker, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] makes them feel like losers and that she doesn’t recognize their parental capacities to take care of their children. [ 11 ] She told them that they have to prove that they were not negligent towards their children.

From his point of view their children Z and A are neglected in the foster family. They noticed that A had many bruises, when they changed her dipper. In fact, Mrs. [Social Worker 4] noted this in her supervised visits report filed as D-10. [ 12 ] They noticed too that their children had dirty nails and dirty hair when they visited them. Few times, their cups of milk were dirty and the milk “sour”. The Court saw pictures of the dirty bottles and Mrs. [Social Worker 4] noted it in her report. [ 13 ] On one occasion, the father saw the foster father being rude with A when he took her out of his truck.

He believes that his children are neglected in the foster family and they can better take care of them at home. [ 14 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] did not believe him when he told her about the rudeness of the foster father towards her daughter. He often asked her to have his children visit them at home but she always refused. [ 15 ] He mentions he would prefer to have Y and X back home but he would accept that they still be entrusted to their foster family, for a short period of time, if he can have more contacts with them and at home. [ 16 ] The Court heard the foster mother and the foster father of A and Z.

They have been foster family for fifteen years. A and Z are with them since November 2014. They are two others children entrusted to them. Mrs. F is working during the day and the children attend a kinder garden. The father does the travelling twice a week for the visits of the children to their parents. [ 17 ] According to her, A has made lots of progress since she has been living with them. Now she can play, jump, swim and slide. When she arrived, she did not show any emotion and now, she has considerably improved.

She explains that A gets lots of bruises on her legs because she falls at the day care and that the educator reported that situation almost everyday. Z got to walk late, at 15 months. He used to cry all the time at the beginning but not any more. Now, he can play and have fun. [ 18 ] She cannot explain the dirty cups of milk during the visit because she usually washes them everyday in the dishwasher. It might be explained by the fact that, on Friday, they had gone to the day care center before going to their visit. Her husband takes them from there to go to the visits.

To explain the fact that the children had dirty feet and nails, she said that, in the morning, they played outside, before going to the visit. [ 19 ] The foster father briefly testifies and confirms that he takes A and Z to the visits twice a week. He heard that the father said to the social worker that he was rude with A but he denies it. He said he only took her by the arm because she jumped from the truck.

He admits that once, A hurt herself when she slipped on the ice and she needed stitches. [ 20 ] Contrary to his wife he said that the children do not take a bath everyday because they suffer from eczema. [ 21 ] The paternal grandmother, Mrs. D, testifies to X being entrusted to her on May 2015. Since then her behaviour has improved quite noticeably. She should be in grade 5 but she is doing mostly grade 2 subjects. The grandmother helps her recuperate. She agrees to continuing being implicated in her granddaughter’s life for as long as necessary.

She accepts to take Y every Saturday so the children can have good time together. [ 22 ] The Court heard Mrs. G, the foster mother of Y. She said that Y was seven years old when he was entrusted to them. At that time he was not speaking very much. She has to help him work on his hygiene, do his homework and play. She said that he improved “a hundred degrees”. She considers Y as a very affectionate, gentle and loving boy. [ 23 ] From November 2014 to February 2015, Y showed some disturbed behaviours, specifically after the visits to his parents. He

was aggressive on the way back. However, everything is back to normal since February. Sometimes, he did not want to go visit but not any longer. Now, when he comes back, he jumps in her arm and shows her affection. She agrees to continue to take care of Y on a long term basis and until his majority if necessary. [ 24 ] The Court heard Mrs. [Social Worker 3], social worker, for Z and A. She works in collaboration with Mrs. [Social Worker 1] who is assigned to Y and X. [ 25 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 3] has supervised the visits of Z and A with their parents, since April 2015. They are often late.

On one occasion they cancelled 20 minutes before the beginning of the visit, while the children were on their way. On April 22 th , Z went directly in her arms even if he did not know her and had never seen her before. She noticed that he did not react to his parents leaving. [ 26 ] From her point of view, the parents do not recognize the needs of their children. They are unable to associate a demand from them with the right answer to it. They have difficulty to attend to the children’s needs when the four of them are present at the same time.

There is a lack of organisation skills on the mother’s part and sometimes a lack of judgment mostly by the father. [ 27 ] The parents do not accept the intervention and deny the reasons of it. They do not understand why the visits always take place at the [centre A] or at the Director of Youth Protection’s office. [ 28 ] She recommends one visit a week for Z and A at their office and one visit for the mother with the four children once a month.

X and Y would continue to visit the parents at the [centre A]. [ 29 ] For the past few weeks, the father has not come to the weekly scheduled visits at the office with Z and A. However the mother is always present. She informed the social worker that the father refuses to come to the office but that he will continue to attend the visit at the [centre A]. [ 30 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 3] recommends that Z and A be maintained into foster care for one year, during which time the Director will elaborate a life plan for them. [ 31 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] is involved in the situation of Y and X since September 2008.

Their security and their development were considered compromised as a result of the parent’s neglects to answer their physical and educational needs. [ 32 ] At the beginning of her intervention she tried to work with the parents to maintain their children at home but in October 2013, X was entrusted to the care of a foster family. In November 2014, the youngest children Z and A were entrusted to a foster family for the same reasons.

She recognises that the parents love their children but cannot respond to their needs. [ 33 ] Since the last Court order, Mrs. [Social Worker 1] met with them on a regular basis at least once a week and sometimes twice a week. Their collaboration and acknowledgment of the situation remain minimal.

The father claims that there was no reason for the intervention of the Youth Protection, so it is very difficult to work with him. [ 34 ] From her point of view, the parents have difficulty to organize themselves to make sure that they will not be late or miss the visits. [ 35 ] She says that when A and Z were first separated from their parents, they did not show any distress and at the first contact with their parents, they did not demonstrate any emotional bond with them. [ 36 ] During the first visit, A did not refer to her parents when she needed help.

It was observed that the parents did not respond to the needs of the children or give them the appropriate response. The father would often talk about his concerns and would give little attention to the children. He is more preoccupied to prepare the meal and clean up the room than by his children’s needs. [ 37 ] He blames the older children for the fact that the babies would not return home. He said that X put him in trouble. The parents make her feel responsible for the neglect on their part.

In fact, during a visit at the [centre A], the father mentioned to the supervisor that he would no longer talk to X because she was getting him into trouble with the Youth Protection Services. On another occasion, the father asked Y and X “Who do you think will get into trouble with the Y.P.D.?” when the battleship toy had fallen onto the floor, so the babies could put the little pieces into their mouth. The children did not respond to their father and showed some reactions after his statement. [ 38 ] The parents are unable to do activities with all of the children.

When they do one with one of them, they leave the other play alone. [ 39 ] The mother is more affectionate with the children but would not often respond to their needs due to her lack of attention or her passivity. [ 40 ] According to Mrs. [Social Worker 1], since X was placed in the foster family, she recovered in her development and she is doing fine in school. [ 41 ] Since he lives with the foster family, Y has learned to read with the support and the stimulation of the foster parents.

He receives speech therapy and attends the Cadets. [ 42 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] affirms that, in the last seven years, she experienced major issues in her interventions with the family in order to help the parents recognize the reasons for the DYP’s involvement. However, the parents did not progress and acknowledge their difficulties. They even denied events that occurred in the past. [ 43 ] She recognizes that the parents love their children. However, the contacts answer the parents’ needs more than the children’s needs. They never show distress to the separation from their parents.

She thinks that it is not beneficial for Z and A to see their parents

twice a week. She noticed over the visits that they are unable to associate a demand from the child with the right answer to it. [ 44 ] She writes in her report filed as D-11 at page 5 that: “In the respect, we might be asking too much of the parents. The hyper vigilance we see in the father is a sign of this. When the father is unable to master and generalize information, it becomes very difficult for him and he needs to be reassured at all times that he is doing the right thing.

For example, during a morning visit, he asked if he could give A and Z some “cheezees” because he did not want to be blamed of wrong doing. When we told him the children did not need this that he could give them fruits, he followed our direction. However, during the next morning visit, the mother came alone and gave the babies some “cheezees”. This is an example of her passive aggressive reacting. This dynamic between the parents has also been observed and creates conflicts between them. The father will get agitated when he asks the mother to do something and she will not comply with his request.

Since the placement we saw a growth in the development of each child. X’s report card is a proof of this. Y’s speech is also a proof of this, as you may remember, he went from a severe language disorder to having no disorder. Y can read and he no longer has the prominent bowel movement problems that he had at home, when he was 5 years old, thanks to a proper diet and the consistency offered by the foster family. A says more words and her motor skills are increasing. Z walks by himself and explores his environment.

Unlike the mother, we cannot conclude that the reasons for the children’s delays are only due to genetic factors. The recovery in the children’s development is a major indication of this. We also have to consider the fact that having four children represents a risk factor in this family.” [ 45 ] Mrs. [Social Worker 1] believes that the children need stability and consistency and that their parents are unable to insure their security and development to their full potential.

In the best interest of X and Y, she recommends that they be placed until their majority. [ 46 ] For Z and A she recommends that they be maintained in the foster care for another year during which the DYP will examine the best life plan for them. [ 47 ] After the proof of the Director, the mother testified and gave her point of view on the situation. [ 48 ] First of all, she said that she accepted that Y and X remain into foster care for a period of one year. Even if her first choice would be that they come back home now. She asks that the visits with them take place at home.

She also wanted Z and A back home. [ 49 ] For the youngest, she is of the opinion that their situation is not better in foster care than with them at home. She insists on the fact that they were often dirty and that they did not receive appropriate care. They arrived at the visits with dirty clothes, dirty hair and nails. Often their diapers needed to be changed and their cups of milk were dirty and the milk was sour. [ 50 ] Mrs. B thinks that the visits at the [centre A] are going fine as it is written in the report of the supervisor.

However she and her husband requested to have visits at home but Mrs. [Social Worker 1] refused. They asked to go out to the park with her children but she refused. [ 51 ] She submits that there was not a lot of intervention from the social worker since the last Court order. She had to ask the help of the users’ committee and the intervention plan was done only on December 8, 2014. [ 52 ] She does not understand why the [centre C] Services would be given to her youngest children from the office in Town A.

In March, she signed the demand form and the services were supposed to be given in Town B, so she could attend the meeting with the specialists. The children are known at the [centre C] in Town B, and she insists that they be followed there. [ 53 ] She said that even if the Court decides to maintain Z and A in the foster care, she wants to see them twice a week at home and to attend all the medical appointments. [ 54 ] She admits that her husband refused to attend the visits when they were held at the DYP’s office, but that she was always present.

She believes that her husband improved his behaviour since he takes medication, but he refuses to meet with Mrs. [Social Worker 1] and to attend the visits at her office. From her point of view, the children are happy when they are together and it is important that they meet each other regularly. Once a month, as recommended by Mrs. [Social Worker 1], is not enough. [ 55 ] The Court has to decide if the security and development of the children are still compromised and if so, determine which measures are in their best interest?

Decision [ 56 ] The Director is asking that X and Y be entrusted to a foster family until their majority and the youngest ones for one year. She states that the parents cannot respond to their children needs during the supervised visits and that since their placement in foster homes, their progress and recovery are remarkable. [ 57 ] Both X’s and Y’s attorneys submit that their clients wish to return home with their parents.

They admit to being well in their foster family, but should the Court maintain them in foster care, they would accept their being placed for a year. [ 58 ] X wishes to see her parents three times a week and would like the visit to take place at home. Y wishes to see his parents at least twice a week. Their attorneys argue that there are no reasons to allow for fewer visits as per the Director’s recommendations. [ 59 ] For them, even if the delay of placement is reached for their clients, the Court should apply the exception because there is a

possibility to reintegrate the children in their home and it is in their best interest to do so. [ 60 ] According to X’s attorney, Me Couillard, it was impossible for the parents to work with Mrs. [Social Worker 1].

The relationship of trust was broken and the Director did not work with them in order to help them reintegrate the children in their family environment. [ 61 ] She submits that it would be in the best interest of the children to appoint another social worker to Y and X’ case, so the parents would be more open to the interventions. [ 62 ] Me Germain is of the opinion that Y’s contacts with his parents are beneficial to him and that the evidence shows that there is an attachment bond between him and his parents.

He is of the view that lessening the contacts with his parents will dissolve this bond. [ 63 ] Me Desjardins represents Z and A on a legal mandate. She claims that the Director has a wrong vision of the parent’s situation. She submits that the parents visit their children regularly, that the supervised visit reports are positive even though the parents occasionally made inadequate comments to the children.

She questions the choice of the foster family for her clients and asks the Court to maintain at least two contacts a week between her clients and their parents. [ 64 ] The attorney of the mother insists that the situation of the parents has improved. The mother is not depressive anymore and the father is calmer since he takes his medication. They were always present at the medical appointments for their children and they are open to work with the social worker, but not Mrs. [Social Worker 1] because they feel judged negatively by her. She does not see why she refuses that the contacts take place at home.

She asks the Court to authorize unsupervised visits at home and to recommend to the Director to appoint a new social worker. The father’s lawyer shares the same point of view as that of the Mother’s. [ 65 ] The proof shows that it is difficult for the parents to attend to the children’s needs when the four of them are present at the same time. [ 66 ] The father has difficulties interpreting and addressing the needs of the children. He does not recognize his difficulty. He sometimes blames the children for the YPD in their life.

The mother does not intervene when the father makes inappropriate remarks to the children. [ 67 ] There is no doubt as to the love of the parents for their children but they need more than love. [ 68 ] The Court should ask itself if the parents will be able one day to respond to all of their needs. The father always has difficulty to contain himself and the mother remains passive. [ 69 ] After seven years of intervention of the Director the parents are not able to assure the children’s security and development to their full potential.

X and Y can no longer wait for their parents to be ready to meet their needs because the past shows their difficulty to improve their capacities. [ 70 ] It is true that their relationship with Mrs. [Social Worker 1] has not fostered their desire to work on their difficulties. However, the Court believes that they would do no better with another social worker. [ 71 ] X and Y ask for more contacts with their parents and a long term placement is not incompatible with regular contacts with their parents. [ 72 ] As for Z and A, the Court believes that the next months will be crucial.

Reduced contacts with their parents would be equivalent to preparing for a long term placement and this is not the purpose of the law. [ 73 ] It is illusory to believe that if the contacts between the children and their parents are diminished, their reintegration is always considered as alleged by Mrs. [Social Worker 1] and Mrs. [Social Worker 3]. [ 74 ] However, we must admit that forcing young children to travel between Town C and Town B, twice a week, in addition to going to medical appointments in the same area is nonsense. [ 75 ] The Court is aware of the lack of family resources where two young children of the same family can be accommodated, but it is permissible to question the choice of host family made by the Director. [ 76 ] At the time of the placement of children in the foster family, family reintegration should be the first concern.

By choosing a family residing in another area than the parent’s, it became difficult to work in this direction, even if the foster father assumed the transportation several times a week. On the other hand, parents have raised questions about the hygiene of children who do not seem to have been taken into account by the Director. [ 77 ] If children are to remain there, it will be necessary to rethink the frequency of the visits, which could be longer if they should be held only once a week.

It would be more profitable in the relation between the parents and their children that contacts occurred in a more favourable environment for longer than two hours. Thus, both parents and children would benefit.

Without excusing the father's attitude in the course of the visits, allowing the visits at his house, as recommended by the court in its last judgment, would probably have resulted in the father's better collaboration with the Director. [ 78 ] However, it would be desirable to reconsider the choice of the foster family and to take steps, so that the children are accommodated in the Town B area. [ 79 ] The children need to live in a stable, predictable and loving environment where they will receive response to all their needs, but they need to maintain contacts with their parents.

It is in the best interest of X and Y to benefit from a long term placement. For Z and A, even thought there is a very little possibilities that they return to their parents’ home, it is in their best interest to continue to work with

them to this objective. [ 80 ] The court is satisfied that the proof has been made on the allegations of the motion. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 81 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 82 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the children X, Y, Z and A are still in danger; For Z and A : [ 83 ] ORDERS the placement of Z and A into a foster family. They have to be placed in the same family; [ 84 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 85 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in measures to correct the situation more particularly that they implicated themselves in the intervention plan; [ 86 ] ORDERS that Z and A go to kinder garden; [ 87 ] ORDERS that the children receive health services for their specific needs at the [centre C] ([centre C]); [ 88 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the children be under agreement of the parties. However, they have to take place at least twice a week if the children are entrusted to a foster family living near the domicile of the parents.

If they are still entrusted to the same foster family, far from the parents’ domicile, the visit will be once a week but for a minimal period of three hours instead of two.

The visits will be in the presence of a person authorized by the DYP; [ 89 ] RECOMMENDS that certain visits be held at the parents’ home; [ 90 ] ORDERS that the children have at least two contacts a month with their sibling; [ 91 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign the required documents if the parents do not sign them in a short delay; [ 92 ] ENTRUST the situation of the children Z and A to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of this judgment; [ 93 ] THE WHOLE until December 30th, 2016. For X and Y: [ 94 ] ORDERS the placement of X to the foster family of her grandmother Mrs.

D and Mr. E; [ 95 ] ORDERS the placement or Y to the foster family of Mrs. G; [ 96 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 97 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in measures to correct the situation more particularly that they implicated themselves in the intervention plan; [ 98 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their parents be once a week in the presence of a person authorized by the DYP; [ 99 ] ORDERS that the children receive health services pertaining to their respective needs; [ 100 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to sign the required documents if they are unable to obtain the authorization of the parents, in a short delay; [ 101 ] ENTRUST the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of this judgment; [ 102 ] THE WHOLE until their majority;

[ 103 ] THE WHOLE without costs. __________________________________ MIREILLE ALLAIRE, J.C.Q. Me Myriam Couillard Attorney for the child X Me Alexandre Germain Attorney for the child Y Me Dominique Desjardins Attorney for the children, Z and A Me Julie Langlois Attorney for the declarant Me Kathleen O’Meara Attorney for the mother Me Patrick Cormier Attorney for the father