2019 QCCQ 16762, 2019 QCCQ 16762

Protection de la jeunesse — 195355 2019 QCCQ 16762 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-035209-196 DATE : May 23, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2009 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to declare that the security or the development of the child X is endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide adequate supervision and support. [ 2 ] The applicant alleges that the family dynamics are complicated and lead to regular conflict within the family. Essentially, the parents are unable to manage the child’s personal difficulties that include emotional outbursts, lying and manipulation.

Their use of repressive methods of discipline is ineffective and contributes to the child’s opposition and attention-seeking behaviour. [ 3 ] The child has been provisionally placed in a foster family since March 15, 2019. The Director is asking to extend the placement until December 31, 2019, with a social follow-up and other measures for a year. [ 4 ] The parents admit the state of endangerment although they deny certain factual elements reported by the social worker. They contest the placement recommendation and ask for the child’s immediate return.

Both parents agree to cooperate with the social follow- up. [ 5 ] Although the child would like to return home, she concedes that the relationship with her parents requires work before this option can be seriously considered and consequently, agrees with the measures proposed. The State of Endangerment [ 6 ] The family had previously received youth protection services related to psychological ill-treatment following a report in April 2017.

According to the Court Report [1] , the family collaborated well and the file was closed in March of the following year. [ 7 ] The Director retained a new signalement on January 30, 2019 alleging physical abuse and conjugal violence. [ 8 ] The investigation that followed revealed that conflicts within the family remain persistent and intensive in their nature. During the assessment interview, the mother confirmed feeling overwhelmed by the many needs of her family.

In particular, she explained that the child constantly acts out and then threatens to accuse the parents of abuse when they try to discipline her. [ 9 ] The parents admit to regular disputes within the family but deny any conjugal violence. They deny as well any physical abuse but admit to using physical discipline on the child on rare occasions and only in response to her extreme behaviour. That being said, they are sensitive to the impact of these methods on the child and have committed to using alternative methods.

[ 10 ] During the assessment interview, the child confirmed that her parents had not had any physical altercations since 2017. She maintained however that she and her siblings were subjected to physical discipline on a regular basis. These allegations were verified but not retained by the Director. Although the Director considers that some physical discipline has been utilized, the extent as described by the child remains unsubstantiated. [ 11 ] On the other hand, the evidence highlights that implementing structure and routine for the child is a challenge.

Generally speaking, the home is properly organized and the children well cared for. It is rather with respect to the child’s attention seeking behaviour and opposition that the parents are at a loss. [ 12 ] The evidence discloses that the child is subject to emotional outbursts, threatens to run away and is dishonest with adults in order to obtain what she wants. [ 13 ] Complicating matters further, certain subjects of contention within the family touch upon cultural expectations. For example, the parents removed the child from school for two weeks, against her wishes, upon learning that she had a crush on a boy.

Moreover, the child submits that her parents ask her to lie to the social worker in order to facilitate her return home and thereby avoid dishonouring the family. [ 14 ] The parents deny the child’s allegations. Regarding school, they explain that they simply intended to look for a private school that would be better equipped to manage her.

It should be noted however that the school reports no particular difficulties with the child, either academically, behaviourally or socially. [ 15 ] As far as the intervention is concerned, the parents deny having ever asked their daughter to lie and argue that they have always collaborated transparently with social services. They consider that their daughter makes up stories to manipulate those around her.

As an example, they submit that their daughter has recently expressed wanting to remain in placement simply because they reprimanded her for taking an Ipad from the foster home without authorization. [ 16 ] Considered as a whole, the evidence reveals that the child is emotionally distraught as a result of the ongoing conflict within the home.

She cries regularly, is subject to violent outbursts and has difficulty eating and sleeping. [ 17 ] The parents acknowledge feeling overwhelmed and are open to working with social services in order to improve their relationship with the child. [ 18 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that the security or the development of the child is endangered for the reasons alleged by the Director. The Measures [ 19 ] The parents are of the opinion that extending the child’s placement would be an obstacle to the intervention.

They submit that providing services within the home would prove more effective in developing their relationship. They consider that the child’s placement is weakening the family ties and creating a distance between them. [ 20 ] Both parents consider that generally speaking, their parental capacities are adequate. They simply need support in order to better connect with their child.

To that effect, they believe that an educator can provide them with guidance in managing her difficult behaviour. [ 21 ] Meanwhile, the child remains hesitant regarding contacts with her parents, stating that they do not always go well. Phone calls are equally problematic and tend to provoke crying or aggressive behaviour on her part. Moreover, she feels pressured by her parents to give positive feedback to the social worker and claims that she is asked to lie. A psychological assessment of the child was undertaken some time ago but has not yet been completed.

Further interviews with the child are required given these most recent allegations. [ 22 ] The parents express being astonished by the child’s allegations. In their opinion, the visits have gone very well. They fail to understand the child’s recent request to implement supervision and deny pressuring her in any way. According to the social worker’s testimony, the mother tends to withhold affection from her daughter in reaction to this situation. [ 23 ] The parents’ position that the family dynamics can be worked on at home is understandable.

Nevertheless, it fails to take into consideration the extent of the child’s emotional suffering. There has been very little change in the family home as of yet. Returning the child before accomplishing any significant improvement in their relationship is more likely to backfire. [ 24 ] Mutual recriminations and accusations are a substantial obstacle to family reunification at this time. Strategies fostering appropriate communication and transparency must be developed and properly implemented. [ 25 ] The parents’ love and concern for their daughter is not in doubt.

That being said, a certain measure of introspection on their

part is called for in order to facilitate her reintegration. The child has many challenging behaviours that are most likely symptoms of her distress. Clearly, she requires a neutral environment at this time. [ 26 ] It is expected that the psychological assessment currently in progress will provide valuable information and insight into the family’s difficulties.

The Court invites the parents to give due consideration to the conclusions of the assessment. [ 27 ] Taking into consideration the evidence as a whole, the Court considers that a placement of five months provides sufficient time to work on the identified issues within the family. With the parents’ cooperation, reintegration within that time frame is a realistic objective. [ 28 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 29 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide adequate supervision and support; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child remain in the care of a foster family for a period of five months; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the DYP, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director, [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from using physical methods of discipline with their child; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to have access and to share information with all involved professionals; [ 36 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo a parental capacity assessment; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family, including the services of an educator; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On May 23, 2019 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the child Date of hearing: May 8, 2019 KO/lf