2022 QCCQ 6860, 2022 QCCQ 6860

Protection de la jeunesse — 223074 2022 QCCQ 6860 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000486-184 DATE: April 19, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2012 Child -and- 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 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on July 6, 2021, to entrust the child to a foster family until his majority and to establish specific contact with the mother and stepfather. [ 2 ] The DYP also formulates a request to be exempted to notify the application to the father. Many attempts have been made to find him, unsuccessfully. A firm was mandated to try to locate him, but without result.

After the evidence submitted and considering the child’s best interest, the file will proceed. Therefore, this request is granted. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and assisted by a lawyer. She contests the conclusion about the placement of the child in a foster family, until his majority. She asks that the child be entrusted to her instead for 6 months. If not, she asks that visits be scheduled, from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon.

As for the child, he is represented by a lawyer who looks after his interests. [ 4 ] The DYP’s evidence is based on documentary evidence as well as the testimony of Ms. Laura-Émilie Savage (psychologist), Ms. [social worker 1] (youth delegate), and Ms. C (foster family). In defence, the mother is also heard and documentary evidence is filed. Historical [ 5 ] The situation of the child has been the subject of several twists and turns over the past years. Many postponements were requested through this file.

In order to have a better picture of the situation, a brief overview of a few judgments rendered since the involvement of the DYP in the family, are hereby reproduced: November 8, 2018 A judgment on a provisional measure entrusts the child to a significant party. December 4, 2018 A judgment on a provisional measure entrusts the child to the mother until January 9, 2019. February 25, 2019 A judgment on an application for protection entrusts the child to his mother until January 31, 2020.

August 5, 2019 A judgment on a provisional compulsory foster care entrusts the child to a foster family. September 4, 2019 A judgment entrusts the child to a foster family until July 31, 2020. December 4, 2019 A judgment on a provisional measure entrusts the child to a rehabilitation centre. April 27, 2020 A judgment on a revision and extension of order entrusts the child to a rehabilitation centre until July 7, 2020.

October 21, 2020 A judgment on revision and extension of order entrusts the child to a rehabilitation centre until July 31, 2021, as well as outings of less than 15 consecutive days in a foster family, if the situation allows it.

July 6, 2021 A judgment on an application and revision of order entrusts the child to a foster family until January 31, 2022. [ 6 ] On January 24, 2022, an application for revision and extension was presented by the DYP, but it has been postponed until April 1, 2022. [ 7 ] A provisional measure was rendered on March 3, 2022, suspending the contact between the child and the mother due to his physical reactions previous to their visits.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 8 ] In the judgment rendered on July 6, 2021, the situation described at the time is as follows: “[9] We have to acknowledge that the mother and stepfather’s situations have been stable regarding their apartment as well as the contact with the children. They provide a clean well-adapted environment and spend quality time with them. On the other hand, the child experienced several traumatic events in the last years and many changes in his environment.

As mentioned in the psychosocial report, “the neglect and abuse he suffered in his family environment in 2019 and before have certainly also had major repercussions on the child’s environment.” Moreover, an assessment regarding the child’s attachment style concludes that he has a disorganized attachment pattern [1] . [10] The child made great improvement regarding the way he expresses his emotions and anger. He deserves to be happy and to be a child. At this moment, he needs a stable, peaceful, and secure environment to develop adequately.

The child is doing well in the foster family with whom he has a good relation and feels safe.” [ 9 ] Now, what is the situation of the child since the last ordered measures? [ 10 ] Since the end of June 2021, the child has been entrusted to his foster family on a full-time basis. He adapted very well into this family. He respects the rules and limits put in place. He participates well in the activities organized by them. The problematic behaviour he showed in the past in other foster families is no longer observed. This family provides him security as well as stability. He fits in and everything is going well.

He is torn between them and his family. He feels that he is betraying his mother, if he chooses to stay with the foster family even if he is happy there. Regarding school, the child functions well academically and behaviourally. No adjustment is required with the child and everything goes smoothly. [ 11 ] The mother adopts a positive attitude with the foster family and the same for the latter. They have a good communication and the child benefits from these positive ex-changes between them.

This allows him to express his affection toward his foster family. [ 12 ] Starting August 2021, the child benefits from outings at his mother’s on every two weekends including sleepovers. Since then, the child shows signs of anxiety the day before the planned visit. Some of his behaviours resurface such as tics, loss of appetite, and difficulty sleeping. The child has violent behaviour towards the cat in the foster home. It is observed that the child is not able to eat his breakfast two days prior to the visit.

He also expresses his fears about the lack of predictability of the activities during visitation. [ 13 ] Some requests were made by the youth delegate to the mother and the stepfather concerning the child during his visitation. It was asked to provide a bedtime routine as well as medication and manage the screen time. The child himself asked that the mother informs him a few days in advance of the scheduled activities for the weekend to reduce his anxiety. At the time, they agreed with that suggestion. However, the child mentions that his mother and stepfather do not apply them.

He adds that he does not have rules, no screen time, and no activities are planned. When interrogated about these affirmations, the mother and stepfather both mention that they do not believe in these interventions. For them, it is too strict and rigid for a weekend. They do not understand why such limits have to be imposed on the child. [ 14 ] During her testimony, the mother explains her point of view regarding the matter. It is not always easy to plan all the activities and the child can adapt. Despite the child’s assertion, she alleges that there is a screen time limit and the child takes his medication.

She admits that it is hard to impose a different routine on the child than the one already imposed on her other kids. Several of these elements are reported directly by the child and nothing suggests that it is not true. It is questionable because in the past the mother has not always been transparent with the DYP. Is this still the case? [ 15 ] In mid-December 2021, the child starts asking questions about his future and if he will be back at his mother. It seems that she told him more than once that he will be coming back for good in January.

Since that time, he is distant with his foster family and more opposing. He reacts more when he returns from his visits to his mother. Some behaviours that had disappeared are resurfacing. At school too, unusual behaviours are observed regarding the child. When the mother is informed of the child’s reactions, her collaboration with the DYP decreases. [ 16 ] Through a certain period in December 2021, the visits of the child at his mother’s place had to cease due to COVID. However, there were telephone contacts. During this period, the reactions observed with the child decrease. Afterward, the visits continued.

More

time goes by and more physical reactions are observed from the child, previous to his mother’s visitation. Before the contact, the child vomits and bites his arm. [ 17 ] The child’s behaviour jeopardizes his placement in his current resource. That would be deplorable because it works there despite his emotional and behavioural vulnerabilities. Considering that these physical reactions are getting worse and his condition is deteriorating as the visit with his mother approaches, a suspension of contact is ordered.

Since then, these reactions are no longer noticed. [ 18 ] As mentioned previously, it is hard for the child, on the one hand, he wants to go back to his mother, but on the other hand, he shares his wish to stay with his foster family, whom he loves very much too. The mother also shares the same reflection. On one hand, she wants her son to return home because she loves him deeply, but on the other hand, she knows that her son loves his foster family and that he is doing well there.

The child is always afraid to be rejected, neglected, or abandoned by his mother and stepfather. [ 19 ] Since the last measure, the situation of the mother and stepfather improved. They are more stable and they are involved in follow-ups regarding their personal issues. Furthermore, they now collaborate with the DYP. The improvements observe allow them to regain custody of their two younger children and everything seems going well. Nevertheless, the situation of the child cannot be compared to his brothers. He has different problems requiring more support and services.

However, the family’s situation is fragile, considering all the follow-ups and responsibilities they have to take on. The last few months have not been easy and they have faced many adversities [2] . [ 20 ] During the visits with his mother and stepfather, they spend good times altogether. Still, they are not consistent in their effort to care for the child’s specific needs. The mother also failed on multiple occasions since October 2021, to call her son for their weekly phone meeting as scheduled. [ 21 ] The child is 9 years old and vulnerable. He needs a stable and secure place to develop adequately.

Despite his young age, he already had several traumatic experiences. He was neglected in his environment, entrusted at a very young age to a rehabilitation centre [3] for a year and a half. He has lived through several changes of environment over the past three years, going from his maternal environment to foster families [4] . All this leaves important sequels to the child and it shows in his behaviour. [ 22 ] The child has difficulty playing by himself and needs to be constantly stimulated. Some work has been done concerning that matter and some improvement is observed.

He benefits from a regular follow-up with a psychologist since 2019. [ 23 ] In a psychoeducation assessment regarding the child, the professional concludes that the child presents a “disorganized attachment pattern”, which originated from psy-chological ill-treatment, severe neglect, instability, and trauma suffered during childhood [5] . [ 24 ] A psychiatric assessment was done as well which establishes the following diagnoses for the child: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), sexualized behaviours, and attachment difficulties.

Furthermore, the psychiatrist suggests possibly Tourette syndrome as well as learning or language disabilities. Some medication is prescribed. Over time, the child became calmer, more stable, and more emotionally available. [ 25 ] As mentioned, the child benefits from a follow-up with a psychologist. At first, the latter acted as clinical support to the rehabilitation centre’s educator [6] . After the child left the rehabilitation centre, she started therapeutic sessions regularly with him.

After their sessions, the psychologist concludes in her follow-up report [7] , the following: “In our opinion, the situation as it represents the best option for X: living in a foster family that has the time and emotional availability to take care of his great need for attention and reassurance, and the possibility of spending time with his biological family, which he loves and cares deeply.

Considering that it took more than two years and multiple resources to reach this level of functioning for X (i.e., being able to develop positively in a family context), it would not be in his best interest to change anything at this point. On the contrary, we believe that X needs to be secured in a long-term placement in his present foster family so that he can finally settle somewhere safe and stable.

Furthermore, we believe that the stability he finds there might provide him the best chance to develop a positive relationship with his biological family, as he would slowly be able to find a resolution to some of the traumas he experiences with them in the past.” [ 26 ] Although her report is dated November 2021, in her testimony the psychologist Ms. Savage reiterates that her opinion remains unchanged to this day. The situation is still the same as when she wrote her report.

Since she has been following the child, she has never had a call from the mother asking her about the therapy or inquiring about his condition. A meeting had even been scheduled with herself, the youth delegate, and the mother, but the mother cancelled it. The mother explains that she misunderstood the content of this meeting and that the psychologist would be present. [ 27 ] In light of the evidence presented, the child’s lawyer considers that the child should remain in the care of his current foster family until he reaches the majority.

This environment represents a stable, secure, and predictable place for him. CONCLUSION [ 28 ] Since the child has been entrusted to his current foster family, he is doing well and no more inappropriate behaviours are observed like in the past. He loves his mother and stepfather, but he also loves his foster family. He does not want to have the burden of choosing between them. He is in the middle of a conflict of loyalty which seems to have been exacerbated when the mother mentions to him that he will soon return home.

Certainly, the mother recognizes that she should not have said such a thing and has not done so since. However, this is not the first time that the mother has made inappropriate comments, as can be read in one of the last judgments rendered [8] . [ 29 ] For years, the child has been tossed from one environment to another. He has been entrusted to his mother but was removed from her environment considering her instability as well as her spouse or because of problems occurring at home. These events had an impact on the child who witnesses them.

The child needs a routine and stability which is difficult to have in the maternal environment

and also because they have other children who do not have the same issues as him. Even the mother admits that it is complicated to impose on him a different routine from the one imposes on her younger children. Moreover, the mother and her spouse do not agree to impose such scales on the child. [ 30 ] The child is functioning very well in his foster environment and has settled in well, beyond all expectations. Today, the mother asks that her son be returned to her for a short period when the overwhelming evidence reveals that the child needs stability. [ 31 ] Since 2018, the DYP has been working with this family.

The mother and her spouse have had several opportunities to mobilize themselves, which they only did recently, not to say too late. However, the damage to the child is done and there is no going back. Even today, the mother does not yet fully recognize the consequences of the trauma experienced by her child. We cannot constantly move him from place to place and test him.

Every transition is hard for the child as mentioned by his psychologist. [ 32 ] Despite all the love that the mother can have for the child, the fact remains that his interest must be prioritized and not the mother who has already had several chances in the past to regain control and who has not seized her chance quickly. Her situation has indeed stabilized since the last measures, but the fact remains that we cannot take any risks considering the family history. [ 33 ] The psychologist summarizes well in her report the portrait and the situation of the child that we cannot ignore, quite the contrary.

This is a professional who has been following the child for several months, and who is well aware of all of his experiences. We must take into consideration her opinion based on long observations and discussions with the child over a long period. [ 34 ] The child requires a structured and secured environment considering his problems. He needs predictability and a routine to feel safe. His actual foster family can provide such an environment contrary to the mother’s environment.

It is confirmed as well by professionals involved in this child’s life. [ 35 ] We cannot entrust the child to an environment that has repeatedly disappointed him. For once, he is well in an environment, he feels good there and it calms him down. Why should he once again be removed from his current environment, to entrust him to his family environment, which remains precarious and fragile? Several placement attempts have been made with the mother since 2018, unsuccessfully. Each time, the child experiences a trauma.

Overall, the preponderant evidence demonstrates that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in his current foster family environment. [ 36 ] As for access rights, considering the evidence adduced, the Court concludes that it is not in the child’s interest to establish precise rights of access. Indeed, it is necessary to take the child in his current situation and adapt the contacts to his reality. The child’s reactions to visits can be extreme and there is no need to impose on him restrictions, but rather fix the access according to the evolution of his situation and his condition.

If one thing the evidence tells us is that, this is a child who needs routine and stability, but he also has important issues that cannot be overlooked and repeated many times through all the previous judgments rendered.

He must also be allowed to integrate fully into his foster family so that he can take his place there and be able to evolve, without the fear of disappointing his mother and stepfather. [ 37 ] Furthermore, considering the reactions observed with the child, the history of this family, and the present decision to entrust him to the majority, it is better to provide supervision in terms of contact, if it is necessary during the present measures. [ 38 ] Now for the months to come, the mother and her spouse must refrain from negatively comment the foster family, if they do not want to derail this life project for the child.

It must be avoided that he returns to a rehabilitation centre or be removed to another foster family, due to his disorganization like in the past. Although the mother may be sad or even angry about this decision, she should not demonstrate it to him not to jeopardize his future or to avoid a suspension of contact. The child must not feel responsible for his placement in an environment other than his mother. [ 39 ] Therefore, the evidence adduces demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger.

Overall, the measures initially recommended by the DYP appear to be in the child’s best interest but including supervision for the contacts. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 40 ] DISPENSES the notification of the application for revision and extension of order to the father; [ 41 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 43 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on July 6, 2021; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family of Ms. C until […], 2030 (date of his majority); [ 45 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined according to an agreement between the parties and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be determined according to an agreement between the parties and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 47 ] MAINTAINS the personal relationships of the child with his siblings; [ 48 ] PROHIBITS the mother from exposing the child to any form of violence; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help concerning her personal difficulties, notably a psychological follow-up, as long as deemed necessary by the professionals involved;

[ 50 ] ORDERS that the child receives specific health and social services required according to his condition, including a psychological; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the mother report to the DYP when required on the measures applied to herself or the child; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the mother actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 53 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel, and assistance to the child and his family until […], 2030 (date of his majority); [ 54 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment; [ 55 ] ORDERS the parties concerned by this order to comply with it. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: April 1, 2022