2015 QCCQ 12125, 2015 QCCQ 12125

Protection de la jeunesse — 153370 2015 QCCQ 12125 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 28890-143 Date: May 14, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 14, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , an eight month-old child, based on the neglect and serious risk of neglect to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated September 22, 2014 are as follows: 3.1. the child is seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of his parents that could cause him harm and the child’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents have been in a relationship since March 2013;

b) the parents acknowledge having a conflictual relationship but the mother denied physical violence at the hands of the father until now;

c) on September 22, 2014, the mother disclosed that in August 2014, she sustained a black eye after the father head butted her;

d) the mother has not been transparent with the youth protection delegate and has minimized the extent of the violence;

e) the parents have a history of verbal and physical confrontations, prior, during and since the child’s birth;

f) the police has been called to the home due to parental conflicts on September 21 and again on September 22, 2014;

g) both parents present anger management issues; 3.2. on September 22, 2014, police intervention resulted in the father leaving the home; 3.3. the maternal grandmother, who has been residing with the baby and the parents since the baby’s discharge from the hospital, is willing to oversee the situation to help stabilize the situation (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

[ 4 ] The case was first scheduled to proceed on the merits on October 22, 2014. Both parents then admitted most of the alleged facts and acknowledged that the child’s security and development were endangered as alleged. [ 5 ] The mother agreed to reside at [House A] with her son as soon as a place became available. The parents also each agreed to a parental capacity assessment. [ 6 ] The mother was accepted at [House A]. However, at the intake meeting on November 14, 2014, the situation degenerated and the mother was not admitted.

Immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was placed in foster care. On November 26, 2014, the Court entrusted the child to his maternal great aunt, Ms. C. [ 7 ] The hearing was scheduled to continue on February 5, 2015. However, the hearing was postponed as the mother expressed a renewed interest in benefiting from the services at [House A] with her son.

As it appears from the Court Record, she was required to establish her commitment to the program before the child could be integrated to her care. [ 8 ] The hearing was finally continued on May 14, 2015. [ 9 ] In light of the mother’s progress, the Director then recommended that the child remain entrusted to his mother’s care on the condition that she reside at a setting approved by the Director of Youth Protection, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 10 ] The mother, assisted by Me De Vette, agreed to all the proposed measures. [ 11 ] The father, assisted by Me Bourdeau, also consented to the proposed measures. [ 12 ] Me Robillard, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-6 as evidence: D-1: Child’s birth certificate; D-2: Court report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated October 16, 2014; D-3: Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother, written by Dr.

Niki Saros, dated January 26, 2015 (filed under

section 294.1 C.p.c.); D-4: Addendum to the Court report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated January 16, 2015; D-5: Addendum #2, written by [Social Worker 1], dated April 21, 2015; D-6: [House A] 6-week assessment period

summary report of the mother and the child, written by [Social Worker 2] and [Social Worker 3], dated April 10, 2015. [ 14 ] In

summary, following much instability in the young child’s life, his young mother, who is only 17, has shown that she is capable of adapting to a structured setting to care for her son. [ 15 ] The [House A] 6-Week Assessment Period

Summary Report indicates that the mother’s attitude is exemplary: A is consistent in following the daily routine that has been set up for X, and is good at reading his cues around feeding and diaper changes. A is quick to react when X is sick and seeks out medical attention immediately. A has no issues complying with [House A] rules and routine. She takes [House A] educators’ suggestions well. She is courteous to staff as well as with her peers. [2] [ 16 ] The mother is caring and attentive to her son: A will respond to X’s needs when he requests her attention. She feeds and changes him and will play with him.

She is constantly stimulating X and appears to genuinely enjoy it. A participates in the infant stimulation program at [House A] and demonstrates an excitement when X reaches new milestones. [3] […] Overall, in attentiveness and security, A is doing well with X. She is always with him or in her field of vision. She responds to his cries and his needs and is able to distinguish between the cries.

She has developed a daily routine, and follows through on it. [4] [ 17 ] The mother’s commitment to her child was also observed during her parental capacity assessment: From the parent-child observations, A appears to have a strong attachment to X. She is concerned about their prolonged separation and has expressed her commitment to parenting X.

This motivation is reflected by consistent visits and her interest in pursuing interventions to strengthen her personal and parenting resources. [5] [ 18 ] The mother is strongly encouraged to continue her efforts to provide consistent nurturing to her son while also taking care of her own needs and addressing long-standing difficulties: A reported numerous symptoms of depression and her responses yielded ratings in the Moderate depression range. Given that chronic

depression was not reported, it is speculated that A’s mood may be related to major life changes and her sense of mourning her separation from X. The presence of long-standing anger problems with pending charges for more than one offense, indicates problems with emotional regulation. Depression depletes emotional resources and poor coping skills can increase aggressive behavior, both of which may serve as parenting risk factors.

Furthermore, A resides alternately between her mother and C and in this way, does not have stable living arrangements at the present time. [6] [ 19 ] Both parents will also need to take steps to ensure that the child is not exposed to conflicts that may arise in their relationship and both appear sincere in their willingness to do so. [ 20 ] Under the circumstances, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under sections 38 b) 1) iii) and 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother’s care on the condition that she reside at a setting approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by consent amongst the parties including the Director of Youth Protection; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations from the Parental Capacity Assessment completed by Dr.

Niki Saros [7] ; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo a Parental Capacity Assessment and follow its recommendations; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a program to address their respective anger issues; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a parenting support/education group; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in individual counselling; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in couple’s counselling; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ undertaking to participate in the above services; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the father refrain from being under the influence of any drugs or alcohol in the presence of the child; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from using all forms of verbal or physical aggression in the presence of the child; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Anne-Marie Dodds Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sylvie Robillard Attorney for the child

Me François De Vette Attorney for the mother Me Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the father Hearing dates: October 22, 2014 and May 14, 2015. TD/vl