2015 QCCQ 19550, 2015 QCCQ 19550

Protection de la jeunesse — 154761 2015 QCCQ 19550 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 30174-155 Date: October 28, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A Applicant -and- A , the mother The parent 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 October 28, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a two month-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated September 17, 2015 are as follows: 3.1. there is a serious risk that the child’s mother is not providing for the child’s basic needs, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) since 2012, the mother’s situation has been followed by the Director of Youth Protection and by the Honourable Judge Denis Asselin of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, due mainly to difficulties in her relationship with her own mother, as it appears from the judgements no. 525-41-025861-121, filed en liasse as Exhibit D-1;

b) in mid-April 2015, the mother started to attend School Program A;

c) at first, her attendance and commitment was exemplary until June 2015;

d) following June 2015, the mother demonstrated a lack of motivation concerning her schooling;

e) the mother also missed a few medical appointments without valid justification;

f) the mother did not attend the prenatal classes recommended by [School A];

g) in the last month of her pregnancy, it was revealed that the mother was spending more time living with a friend, rather than being at her own mother’s home;

h) the mother does not acknowledge the risk factors;

i) the mother’s judgement is, at times, questionable;

3.2. on August 19, 2015, the parties signed a provisional consent whereby the child would be entrusted to his mother’s care at the condition that she reside with her own mother and that she be accountable for her time in the community (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lavigueur, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion with certain clarifications, namely that her pregnancy interfered with her schooling and prenatal classes.

She expressed her consent to all the proposed measures and expressed her resolve to be as present as possible to care for her son. [ 6 ] The child's father is not declared on the child's birth certificate. [ 7 ] Me Harvey, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-5 as evidence: D-1: En liasse, Youth Court Judgements in the file 525-41-025861-121; D-2: Parental capacity assessment of A, written by Niki Sarros, dated October 19, 2015, filed under 294.1 C.c.p.; D-3: Psychological psycho educational assessment of A, written by Reida Real Reyes, dated August 29, 2014, filed under 294.1 C.c.p.; D-4: Court Report, written by [social worker 1], dated October 22, 2015; D-5: Declaration of Birth. [ 9 ] The young mother, born on May 13, 1999, was only sixteen when her son was born and she is followed by the Director of Youth Protection for her own difficulties, as it more fully appears from the Judgments filed as Exhibit D-1. [ 10 ] The mother’s Parental Capacity Assessment describes her difficulties in establishing priorities, more particularly her ambivalence regarding her parental responsibilities: Ms.

A appears to have an attachment to X, however, she wavers in her commitment to parenting full-time. Ms. A requested placement of X on a short term basis, because she was “tired and needed a break.” Her motivation and intention must be understood within the context of her developmental age and functioning. Ms. A has a history of psychological distress related to depression, anxiety, and aggression, compounded by disordered behavioural problems (e.g. oppositional defiance and conduct problems).

Placement was provided on a short- term basis and prior to reintegration home, she became pregnant with X. [2] and When the possibility of attending the residential program at [School A] was recommended, Ms. A stated, it was “not a good place” because other people have told her so. Ms. A is quite reluctant to pursue this program, even though she would have an opportunity to parent X independently, while developing skills she needs.

Her unwillingness raises questions about her capacity to establish parenting priorities. [3] [ 11 ] Moreover, the mother faces cognitive challenges: From the prior testing, intellectual potential is in the Low Average range. The profile shows uneven cognitive development, which is consistent with learning delays in the verbal sphere. Adaptive functioning is below average and reflects deficits in conceptual, practical and interpersonal skills. [4] […] There are immaturities in thinking and difficulty with conceptualizing ideas systematically in a planned and pragmatic manner. Insight and foresight are limited. Ms.

A’ analysis remains at a concrete level and she has little understanding of the mechanism for making changes in her behaviour, or the underlying motivation guiding her behaviour. [5] [ 12 ] In addition, her relationship with her mother presents additional risk factors, as described in her psychological assessment: […] A’s past acting out behaviour may result from the lack of emotional support and stability that needed to come out from a significant person in her life. […] A seems to have learnt to compensate for this lack of emotional support by expressing her frustration with anger and oppositional behaviour that stems from impulsivity.

A reports generally feeling sad, being misunderstood, and/or feeling that life is getting worse and worse. […] • It is also important that the person to be the caretaker of A receives support (from anger management sessions or from youth protection services) on how to provide structure in an assertive but playful manner and appropriate limits to an adolescent that has had to adapt to grow up without an attachment to a significant figure. A’s distrust and weariness is due to a lack of emotional support growing

up, and this resentment can take over when she feels hurt. The caretaker will need to be prepared for A’s need to learn to express her emotions and be supportive about it.

The new caretaker needs to be able to provide stability and structure. • I strongly recommended family therapy between the caretaker and A to provide them with the communication skills needed to face so many repressed and stored emotions. [6] [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, defining the roles and responsibilities of the child’s mother and grandmother will no doubt present great challenges and the extent of the mother’s authority and responsibility will reflect the degree of commitment she is able to show in caring for her child and making her parental responsibilities her main priority. [ 14 ] Despite the challenges, both mother and grandmother appear intent on trying to work together in the child’s interest. [ 15 ] Consequently, 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: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are compromised under

section 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: [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his maternal grandmother, Ms.

B; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child’s mother will be residing in the home and intends to sleep in the home every evening and to play as much of a role as possible in caring for her son; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the child sleep in the mother’s room on the condition that the mother not sleep outside the home for more than two consecutive evenings in any given month and not for more than a total of four evenings in any given month; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations of the Parental Capacity Assessment as well as her psychological assessment; [ 22 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother and the maternal grandmother participate in counselling to improve their relationship and ability to communicate and that such services be made available, as soon as possible; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the services an educator be made available to the family for as long as necessary; [ 24 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s undertaking to attend School A on a regular basis, five days a week; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Georgia Limperis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sonia Harvey Attorney for the child Me Marie-José Lavigueur Attorney for the mother

TD/vl