2023 QCCQ 10385, 2023 QCCQ 10385

Protection de la jeunesse — 235146 2023 QCCQ 10385 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000726-221 DATE: September 4, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2015 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to extend the order rendered on April 21, 2022, in respect of the child to entrust her to a foster family until March 31, 2024 . Her sister is aimed by the same application. Common evidence is presented. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present, and they contest the recommendations suggested by the DYP. They ask that the children be returned to their family environment.

The father adds that they did not have the chance to have both children enough with them to demonstrate that they were able to take care of them. The father wishes that the children be entrusted to the mother, and she will be staying with his own mother. As for the mother, she wishes to move back to her hometown and does not seem to share the same project as the father. It is understandable due to her bad relationship with the paternal grandmother.

CONTEXT [ 3 ] At the beginning the DYP had to intervene in this family considering certain concerns raised regarding their environment. [ 4 ] On June 17, 2021, an immediate protective measure is applied to entrust the children to a foster family. [ 5 ] From June 17 th until June 30, 2021, the children are removed from their parental environment in order to assess the situation prevailing and to make some verification that arise throughout the follow-up. [ 6 ] On June 30, 2021, the children are returned into their family environment. [ 7 ] In January 2022, the mother is urgently hospitalized due to an overdose of her anxiety medication. [ 8 ] On January 13, 2022, a judgment on provisional measures entrusted the children to their paternal grandmother.

This measure was extended. From that point, the DYP had difficulty communicating with the parents to establish a visitation

schedule with their children. They also cancelled several times or were late. Throughout the file, numerous meetings or appointments concerning the parents or the children have been cancelled by them. They always have excuses to explain their absences. Since the children are with their paternal grandmother, significant improvements are noticed compared to before. X talks more, she plays and makes jokes. She is not reluctant with the DYP. The children do not talk about their parents, and they refuse to go see them.

[ 9 ] On April 21, 2022, a judgment was rendered entrusting the children to Ms. C up to December 31, 2022. [ 10 ] On February 23, 2023, a judgment on a provisional measure is rendered entrusting the children to the mother, excluding the father and in the condition, she remains at the women’s shelter. [ 11 ] On May 25, 2023, an immediate protective measure was applied to entrust the children to a foster family. [ 12 ] On June 5, 2023, a judgment on a provisional measure was rendered entrusting the children to a foster family, suspending the contact between the parents and the children.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 13 ] Now, since the last order rendered on April 21, 2022, what is the situation of this family? [ 14 ] When the social intervener assigned to the file started her follow-up, the parents had not seen their children since the beginning of April 2022 due to their lack of collaboration with the DYP and the children’s reaction after the visits. On May 26, 2022, the father had a toxic psychosis and barricaded himself in the house with a weapon which required the intervention of the police law enforcement, and thereafter was hospitalized until June 29, 2022.

What really happened remains unclear to this day as well as the involvement of the mother. This event led to the loss of their car and place of residence. On September 14, 2022, the father was again brought to the hospital after showing symptoms of psychosis. Once again, the circumstances of this event remain unclear. [ 15 ] The children had their first contact with the mother on June 16, 2022. After the father was released from the hospital, a contact was also established. The parents signed a contract setting out rules regarding the visits with the children.

During the summer, the parents were not consistent with the scheduled visits. Moreover, the children are generally reluctant when it is time to meet their parents but, in the end, they are happy to see them. Even though, the parents can be positive and spend quality time with them. [ 16 ] However, at their return in foster care, some reactions are observed. X isolates herself and draws into herself while Y tries to control her environment.

Considering the inconsistencies of the parents regarding the contacts, they were reduced. [ 17 ] The grandmother is overwhelmed by the children’s behaviour and needs a lot of support. She also tends to do a lot to help her son and she often seems overwhelmed by his personal problems. She started a follow-up at the CLSC but does not fully recognize the consequences of her involvement with the father and her conflict with the mother. She firmly believes that she can protect the children from the conflict, but some concerns are raised in that matter.

In fact, since June 2022, the paternal grandmother tends to denigrate and blame the mother in every DYP meeting. Therefore, she could not be accredited as an official kinship foster family.

However, she remains an important attachment figure for the children, and she wishes to change the situation and already some positive modifications were observed. [ 18 ] In the last measure, the DYP was seeking an additional placement of one year at the paternal grandmother to see if she will mobilize herself and make some changes before considering a long-term placement with her, since the maximum placement period is already largely exceeded. Sadly, the situation did not improve and even worsened.

The paternal grandmother still shows a lack of neutrality toward the mother and gets involved between the parents and the children’s situation since the couple had split up, taking his son’s side. [ 19 ] The parents show an interest in having helped to deal with their personal difficulties, but they never actualize them or end them prematurely. [ 20 ] Finally, in November 2022, the mother talks about splitting up with the father and wishes to work on her problems in order to get back her children. From then on, each parent has their visits separately. The visits with the mother are going well.

Her stability has improved, she collaborates well with the services and admits her difficulties. [ 21 ] Considering the behaviour of the paternal grandmother and her interference during the mother’s visits, which had repercussions on the children, the latter decided to move into a women’s shelter as recommended by the DYP.

At this point, the children were removed from their paternal grandmother and entrusted to the mother, on the condition that she remains at the shelter. [ 22 ] Since the return of the children to their mother, they have significant reactions due to the reactivation of their trauma and difficulties in terms of attachment. They are hypervigilant and seem in survival mode. Even if the children react differently, it still affects their school attendance, visits with the father as well as meetings with professionals.

The father is very comprehensive with the situation and respects their pace, even if he believes that they need both parents. [ 23 ] Furthermore, the children have difficulty adjusting into the shelter environment. A follow-up with a specialized educator is put in place, to help the mother and give her some tools to intervene with them. The eldest child started a follow-up with a psychiatrist to help deal with her issues. [ 24 ] In April 2023, the eldest child was hospitalized due to a major disorganization. The father did not come to see her neither asked for news, nor did call back the DYP.

He was notified through a text message to which he replied by a refusal that the child receives medication to stabilize her mood, which required a court order. Both children had more crisis or tantrums, especially when they face a refusal or when they tried to gain control. The situation is fragile, and the mother tends to minimize the importance of her children’s difficulties, thinking that everything will settle on its own. [ 25 ] During that time, the school attendance of the children is a problem, and they are not going. A reduce

schedule is put in place by the school teams for them to reintegrate gradually, without success. [ 26 ] On May 11, the mother and her children move into a supervised apartment belonging to the women’s shelter. A new protocol is put in place for the children, by the social intervener and the educator, to go to school such as taking the iPads away from the children,

which the mother firmly refuses. The mother continues to keep the children at home despite all the attempts made for them to be back at school. The mother starts to be less collaborative, and it is observed that the children have no routine. [ 27 ] On May 25, the mother was evicted from the apartment after sharing the confidential address of the apartment to the paternal grandmother. The father even brought her a television. The mother reacted to the eviction by locking herself in the apartment. A police intervention was necessary to get her out and the children were present.

An immediate protective measure, as mentioned earlier, was applied right away to entrust the children to a foster family. [ 28 ] The children adapted well in their foster family. They do not show any behavioural problems and they went back to school. In both environments, no disorganization or crises have been reported since their arrival. The medication of the eldest child was reduced considering her improvement. They do not ask about their parents, and when the subject is discussed, rather they get uncomfortable and stop talking. They refuse to call the mother as well.

At the revision held on June 29, 2023, the parents were absent. [ 29 ] Throughout the father’s testimony, he talks a lot about the things that the social intervener does not do correctly and about his recriminations toward her, however, at no time does he mention his own difficulties, including his substance abuse problems that he continues to deny despite his hospitalizations, nor that some of his actions led to the placement of the children.

In fact, we know nothing about his personal situation or whether he has taken any therapeutic steps to help him, nor the reasons why several contacts with the children are cancelled or even explanations regarding many facts raised by the DYP in their evidence. [ 30 ] The father says he went to see a counselor, but he was not assiduous in doing so , and we know nothing about his follow-up.

He explains that he did not have the financial means to pursue this therapeutic approach. [ 31 ] Obviously, the father only denigrates the work of professionals who gravitate in the children’s lives without taking responsibility for the prevailing situation of which he is an integral part of. This situation is very worrying. He does not recognize anything, does not mobilize to change the situation and justifies himself by blaming others.

Nothing in the father’s testimony reassures the court about his ability to care for his children. [ 32 ] If the father was able to recognize his difficulties and seek intensive services to help him, he would be able to play a more significant role in his daughter’s life as well as having good parental skills because he already showed he is able to have good contact with his children when he is of sound mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case, he prefers to blame everyone else and denies having any problems nor a drug addiction. [ 33 ] The father’s mental state remains a great concern.

Once he showed up at a DYP’s meeting in a disorganized state, denigrating the mother as well as accusing her to have a reprehensible behaviour. He adds that the children are not safe with the mother. His speech was incoherent. Surprisingly, during the present hearing, he asks that the children be entrusted to the mother, which is contradictory to what he has been saying about the mother in the past few months regarding her ability to care for them. [ 34 ] In the last year, the children had already been entrusted to the mother for several months, to the exclusion of the father.

However, her personal situation, her lack of collaboration with the services and the children’s non-attendance at school shows that she is unable to provide a stable and secure environment for them. [ 35 ] It is wrong to say that the parents did not have the chance to see the children quite the contrary, but they decided to stay in their position instead of working with the DYP and the services offered to improve their situation so that they could take back the children. [ 36 ] The mother had services with the organism A, a social worker and an educator.

However, little is known about her follow-ups since her departure from the shelter and whether other follow-ups are currently underway. We know that she has returned to New Brunswick even though the children are in the area. [ 37 ] Neither the mother nor the father filed any documentation regarding follow-ups or a report on the interventions carried out. In fact, the evidence is silent on recent, verifiable therapeutic approaches. [ 38 ] Since the intervention of the DYP, this family received intensive services, but the parents are inconsistent and do not get involved with the help offered.

At the end, the children are the ones affected by the events. To this day, the situation did not evolve. The children deserve to be stable and not wait for their parents to adjust. It has gone on for too long, and we must now think exclusively about them. Furthermore, the situation has worsened since the last order. [ 39 ] Like the court already mentioned in the previous order [1] , the parents never attended their personal follow-up with the social worker at the CLSC. They do not collaborate with the services or with the DYP, and they are not transparent towards them.

The father particularly demonstrated opposition to the professionals involved with the family and avoids them. It is hard to work with him and make some changes under these circumstances. These remarks are still relevant although more than a year has passed, and the same observations were made at the time. [ 40 ] There is no doubt that both parents love and care for their children, but their actual way of life is not appropriate and suitable for the children.

However, the children cannot wait indefinitely for their parents to mobilize and make the necessary changes to provide them with a stable, secure, peaceful and violence-free-living environment. Presently, their current foster family can provide such surroundings for the children and they are progressing well. [ 41 ] In the conclusions sought, the DYP asks that the contacts between the parents and the children be suspended.

On this aspect, the court refers to the social report dated July 3, 2023, fully reproduced as follows [2] : “Regarding the contact with the parents, the decision to r e-e stablish some will have to be made without the best interest of the children only. We will have to make sure that they are ready and comfortable before planning some and the parents will have to respect their rhythm. On their side, the parents will also need to improve their stability if they wish to play a more active role in the life of their children.

To this day, we are still worried about their mental health and drug consumption difficulties. The first step for the parents is

still to recognize those difficulties and to take action in getting the needed help.” [ 42 ] Last June, an order was issued suspending contact between the children and the parents, in part because of their reactions following visits. However, the children are now entrusted to a foster care, a stable environment in which they evolve well. The maximum time of placement is largely stretched and clearly a return of the children to their family environment, and thus, in the medium or long term, seems difficult to consider at this stage according to the evidence adduced.

It is not hidden that the DYP aims rather a life project in their current environment. Certainly, the evidence reveals that the contacts have not always been positive for the children, but it should not be forgotten that some have been adequate, as well. [ 43 ] The measure sought today ends on March 31, 2024, it is still a long delay for the suspension of contacts, allowing little for parents to work on their difficulties if they wish, as mentioned in the social intervener’s report.

Nevertheless, even if the court does not intend to extend the suspension of the parents’ contact with the children, it is still necessary to put boundaries in order to avoid a deplorable situation that could cause harm to the children. [ 44 ] The parents will have to prove themselves and be adequate if they wish to maintain contact with them. The responsibility lies with them alone and they will have to make the necessary changes if they want to benefit from it. [ 45 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger.

Considering the evidence adduced, the child’s lawyer position and her best interest, the application is well founded. Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP are suited for the child. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 46 ] GRANTS the re-amended application for revision and extension of order; [ 47 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 48 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on April 21, 2022; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a designated foster family until March 31, 2024 ; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the contact between the parents and the child be determined by agreement between the parties, taking into considering the child’s desire as well as her best interest and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 51 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to suspend the contact between the child and the parents, if deemed necessary; [ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random drug screening tests; [ 53 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek counselling for their personal difficulties, as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 54 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents, the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding medical authorization, school authorizations, social and other authorizations, if the parents are unable to be reached in a reasonable time or if the parents refuse unjustifiably, and AUTHORIZES the DYP or the foster family to sign instead of the parents; [ 55 ] PROHIBITS the disclosure of certain information to the parents, namely the address of the foster family; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 57 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until March 31, 2024 ; [ 58 ] 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 judgment. _________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Ariane Cayer for the child

Ms. A the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: July 6, 2023