2012 QCCQ 20541, 2012 QCCQ 20541

Protection de la jeunesse — 129525 2012 QCCQ 20541 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 505-41-006642-112 DATE: December 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2001 Child THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B , deceased Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.].

[ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents an amended motion for the partial revision of a Court decision dated May 7 th 2012, concerning the child X, born on […] 2001. [ 2 ] Within a one-year order of measures of aid and counsel to the child and his family, the previous order entrusts the child to his paternal aunt, Ms C, while structuring the contacts with his mother. [ 3 ] As justification for the revision, the Director alleges that the mother's continued personal difficulties and limited parental capacities, result in the child being put at serious risk.

As well, the Director submits that the mother's lack of transparency and collaboration with the intervention justifies the revision of the measures. [ 4 ] Principally, the Director proposes that the mother's contacts with her son be henceforth under the supervision of a third person chosen by their services, and that the Court grant a partial withdrawal of her parental authority in favour of Ms C, person with whom the child resides. The whole for a period of six months, in view of the paternal aunt proceeding before the Superior Court for custody. [ 5 ] The parties consign their positions to the Court record.

The mother contests the measures sought by the Director, and seeks the return of her son to her care. The child contests the supervision of his contacts with his mother and asks to have one overnight during the visits. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] The Director of Youth Protection assumes the onus to demonstrate appreciable changes in the situation justifying a review of the measures in force, in the best interests of the minor child. [ 8 ] Since the last order, the child remains with his paternal aunt.

In this environment, he receives positive attention to his needs. [ 9 ] X continues to have behavioural issues in school. He contends regularly with bullying. In May 2012, an altercation with another student results in suicidal ideations. Following this incident, he discloses being sad and not wanting to live with his mother, who is constantly working and offers him no activities. [ 10 ] X undergoes a psychological assessment in July 2012, in view of determining the nature of his behavioural and emotional issues. The mother is unavailable for this assessment.

The report concludes to the following: Given X's turmoiled background with his mother, as well as the recent loss of his father, it is the current clinical impression that X is experiencing deep feelings of sadness and rejection which are impacting his daily life. Consistent with X's responses on the M-PACI and the CDI-2, he is a boy who tries to present himself as emotionally stable by denying that negative circumstances affect him. Underneath the surface, however, clinical observations, reports from Mrs.

C, and his responses on questionnaires instead suggest a boy who is grief stricken over the death of his father, with whom he was close, and feels rejected by his mother, whom he would like a better relationship. Instead of confronting these feelings, X mostly internalizes them and blames himself. (Psychological assessment report, pièce D-3, p. 7-8) [ 11 ] The mother leaves the home of her aunt, with whom she resides for numerous years, to live in an independent apartment.

This marks a steady decline of her situation and the resurgence of a cyclical instability, intensifying her personal difficulties. [ 12 ] Notwithstanding the specific

schedule underlined in the Court judgment, the visitation is inconsistent, in reason of the mother's situation, or at X's request. X remains conflicted as to his mother, and vacillates regularly as to the visits with her. [ 13 ] Both X and his mother report that their relationship is fraught with regular conflicts and mutual disrespect. The mother describes X's behaviours as aggressive, namely screaming and yelling, even pushing, shoving and punching her on occasion.

These behaviours are inexistent at his aunt's home. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the mother's attitudes and choices nourish discord in the various spheres of her life. X is witness to various altercations and conflicts while in his mother's care in the past months, some of which require police interventions. The mother takes little care in shielding her son from these conflicts, even asking him to participate in these by recording the events. [ 15 ] Despite the mother's eviction from her apartment in October, she remains illegally on the premises until November 22 nd . She loses her employment.

Following the mother's eviction from her apartment in October 2012, there is suspension of the visits. [ 16 ] The mother indicates that she is in a new apartment since November 26 th (2 ½ rooms) and can receive her son for visits. She has a portable bed that he can use. [ 17 ] The previous order aims at reconstituting the mother's significance in her son's life, following the diminishment of her role during the years preceding the father's death in August 2011. The measures design that X be able to develop harmoniously in both his milieus.

The mother's collaboration, availability and transparency are essential elements to the success of the intervention. [ 18 ] The mother fails to make any serious attempt to either collaborate with the Director or participate in the measures. Numerous services are made available to her, such as anger management and parenting classes, all the object of open rejection or neglect. The mother is regularly denigrating and verbally aggressive to the workers and Ms C.

Neither does she participate in her son's therapies, education or evaluations. [ 19 ] Attempts to mediate and mend the relationship between Ms C and the mother are unsuccessful before the mother's attitudes and lack of regard for the crucial importance of establishing lines of communications, in the best interests of X.

[ 20 ] The evidence establishes that notwithstanding the tracing of a clear pathway designed to shore the mother/son relationship, the mother remains overwhelmed by her personal issues and her perceptions of persecution by the Director and the father's family. She continuously transfers blame on others and fails to recognize any responsibility for her present circumstances and concurrently, her son's disarray.

This limits her effective emotional and physical availability for her son, contributing to the sustenance of the turmoil that inhabits him, and which is the foundation of his emotional overflows. [ 21 ] The Court concludes that the significant impact of the mother's personal situation and perceptions, on X's already fragile emotional constitution, justify further structuring of their contacts.

As well, the Court considers that the Director proves that X's security is presently in peril in his mother's care and this, considering the overwhelming difficulties of her personal situation as well as her transient lifestyle. For these reasons, the measures proposed by the Director are appropriate and in the child's best interests. [ 22 ] Furthermore, the mother is incapable of taking effective means to remain available and to respond to requests concerning her son's well being. She ceases to use the communication pouch put in place to facilitate the transfer of information concerning her son.

She fails to sign an authorization for the child's summer camp or vacation periods with his aunt. The worker is chronically unable to reach the mother, at any time. At the hearing, the mother presents numerous excuses justifying why she is unreachable, all of which lack in credibility considering the regularity of the incidents. [ 23 ] The child's best interests dictate that the Court order alternate means of responding to the requirement of authorizations.

Consequently, should the mother fail to respond to requests within 48 hours, Ms C will have the authority to sign authorizations in her place. [ 24 ] The Court concludes that a 6 month period is insufficient to stabilize X. The Director obstinately maintains the position forwarded at the last hearing, to the effect that their intervention will no longer be necessary once Ms C obtains legal custody.

The Court specifically rejects this position in the last order and the new facts brought forth confirm that the Director's intervention remains necessary to preserve the mother/child relationship, facilitate the contacts and mediate between the parties, if such is necessary.

X wishes to maintain contacts with his mother and at this time, withdrawal of the Director's involvement will jeopardize such. [ 25 ] The Court concludes that one year is an appropriate period to maintain the measures. [ 26 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his paternal aunt, Ms C; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and following an agreement between the parties and in default of such, occur at least once a week following a calendar established between the parties; [ 31 ] In default of the mother responding to a request of authorization concerning her son within 48 hours, the Court WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES Ms C to sign said authorizations in resepect to health care, education, travel, passport and recreation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother participate actively in the measures ordered; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution of body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the child receives the medical and psychological services required and follows recommendations; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Véronique Crête Attorney for the Petitioner Me Patrick Cormier Attorney for the mother Me Kathleen O'Meara Attorney for the child

Date of hearing: December 10, 2012