2012 QCCQ 7677, 2012 QCCQ 7677

Protection de la jeunesse — 124189 2012 QCCQ 7677 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000337-102 DATE: May 29, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Petitioner and X Child and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for extension of an order in respect of X (2004-[…]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection is seeking from the Court an order for the placement of the child with a foster family until majority. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother is present with her lawyer who declares that she hardly agrees with the recommendations of the Director of youth protection. [ 4 ] The child's lawyer, considering the reports content and the position of the mother, accepts the recommendations of the Director of youth protection. [ 5 ] Mrs A is the mother of five (5) children. Two of them are already entrusted to family members since a long time.

This hearing concerns X, Y and Z. [ 6 ] A file's overview reveals that X and Y are removed from their mother on voluntary measures in January 2009 and placed with a maternal aunt, Y for three (3) months and X for eight (8) months. The mother is than pregnant and delivers Z on [...], 2009. [ 7 ] The reasons for this apprehension by the Director of youth protection, as mentioned in the agreement for voluntary measures, are :

"concerns with Mrs A struggling with suicidal thoughts and depression as well as abuse of medication, leaving the children unattended." [ 8 ] On May 7, 2010, petitions for protection purpose are served to the mother, and they are heard on July 8, 2010 where the Court declares that the security and development of the three children are in danger.

The main reasons are : - the mother has been under suicides watch many times over the past year ; many signalements were done to the Youth Protection ; - the mother abuses medication (ativan) and she struggles with an eating disorder ; - the mother is aggressive with her children ; - the mother's boyfriend has an important criminal record and is serving a house arrest sentence at the mother's residence ; - the mother received many services for her problems over the years without too much results ; she is reluctant and shows resistance. [ 9 ] The children are then placed with foster families until December 30, 2010, the time for the mother to definitely change her way of life and address seriously her personal issues. [ 10 ] On November 29, 2010, petitions for extension of order are served to the mother and are finally heard on April 6, 2011, after several postponements mainly at the mother's request (she needed to be evaluated). [ 11 ] At this hearing, several reports by professionals are filed as well as many police occurrences reports. [ 12 ] The youth protection delegate ends as follow her complementary psychosocial report of April 5, 2011 : "Since court in July 2010 Mrs A has not cooperated with the youth delegate working with this file.

Mrs A has cancelled, did not show or was late for medical appointments, meetings with the youth delegate as well as her visits with her children. Mrs A has disrespected the staff at the community center where her visits with her children are held as well as the rule and regulations within the center. Mrs A has on numerous occasions been aggressive and argumentative with the professional supervising the visits with her children. It is also reported Mrs A has been made or attempted to make contact with the children.

It is also reported Mrs A has been made or attempted to make contact with the foster families through email, facebook or texting. Mrs A has also shown up unannounced at the foster family's home." [ 13 ] Mr Robert Huot, a psychologist, concludes his assessment of Mrs A (November 10, 2010) as follow : "A is a 29-year-old woman presenting many personal difficulties. First, I have clear indications of a Borderline Personality Disorder with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Her condition will make her prone to apply inconsistently good parenting skills.

Therefore, she may put the optimal development of her children at risk. A definitely needs to be followed in psychology and psychiatry for her condition. We also have to keep in mind that she is highly prone to substance abuse. Though she has knowledge and potential to apply good parenting skills, her emotional condition is actually incompatible with responsible parenting. She is very likely to show inconsistency and therefore disturb her children by creating an insecure attachment. Her Borderline Personality Disorder is the main cause of her instability.

Such a personality disorder is created by a poor attachment and parents with this disorder tend to reproduce the same attachment problems they developed. It is imperative that we improve A's emotional stability and that we address her personality disorder with psychotherapy first at controlling her anger and making sure she does not display parasuicidal and suicidal gestures. Her depressive condition also needs to be addressed. I believe it can definitely impact on her parenting skills. Therefore, it is my opinion that A is not ready to get her children at this point in time.

I also have concerns regarding her actual life partner and the quality of their relationship ; issue that needs to be addressed by the social services. On the other hand, considering her knowledge and the potential to develop a sane attachment with her children, I believe it would be worthwhile to gradually increase the frequency and the length of her children's visits in order to promote attachment and the application of her parenting skills.

During the visits, she will need to be guided by a family worker who will help her to apply good parenting skills, pinpoint the activities to share with her children, indicate her level of involvement and use of an adequate and firm discipline. We have to keep in mind it will take time and the improvement will be slow and rocky. We have to expect that A will have difficulty, regress at times and will show resistance towards interveners at some point. This in part of her personality disorder.

She will have to learn through her follow-up in mental health to control her emotions and become more constant in her behaviour otherwise it will negatively impact on the attachment. We also have to consider that the 3 children seems to have at least a language delay and that they will need a full developmental assessment and intervention at least with a speech language pathologist ; A definitely will be part of a stimulation program and her implication is imperative and also an occasion to develop the attachment.

If within a period of six months we do not see signs of improvement with A, it is my opinion that Social Services should consider a guardianship in the best interests of the children. "

(our underlinings) [ 14 ] The Court then extends the last Court order until October 31, 2011 and, again, orders the mother several things to do, hoping that she will, for good, settle her problems and take back her children. [ 15 ] Unfortunately, the situation brings the Director of youth protection to serve again to the mother petitions for extension of orders and, this time, until the majority of the children. [ 16 ] This case had been scheduled on October 5, 2011. Since, there were several postponements for all kind of reasons related to the mother (absence, sickness, departure for Town A, therapy).

Finally, the case was heard on March 14, 2012. [ 17 ] At the present hearing, the Court studied the psychosocial report, several medical reports related to the mother's hospitalization in October 2011 and a letter from Dr Laroche confirming an appointment of October 20 (missed by the mother), letters from detox centers, the mother's criminal record and police occurrences reports, foster family's home study and, concerning X, a psychological assessment report. [ 18 ] The Court heard the testimony of the petitioner and the mother. [ 19 ] The petitioner testifies that she wrote her report in October 2011 (the hearing was initially set for October 5, 2011) and had no contact with the mother since.

Mrs A had left for Town A for a certain period of time and her whereabouts were unknown (no address, no phone number). She did not show up at Court in November and December. [ 20 ] The petitioner ends her report as follow : "Since the last court order the mother has barely attended visits with her children, has had criminal charges for assault as well as impaired driving charges against her, missed medical appointment, has had several suicide interventions and has not followed up with the youth delegate as instructed.

Although the mother did attend some visits and seemed to show remorse for missed appointments, the mother did not make enough of a significant change in her social, psychological or psychical well being to demonstrate she is capable of being a full time mother to her three children." [ 21 ] Concerning the mother/children contacts since the last court order up to September 2011, the psychosocial report reveals that the mother attended only six (6) visits with her children out of thirty (30) scheduled visits. She missed these visits for all kind of reasons like misplacing or losing copy of the

schedule or being mixed up with the dates. [ 22 ] In September 2011, the mother requests more visits and more activities. [ 23 ] In order to give the mother more control over her time with the children and to empower her to be more involved with her children's everyday lives, the Director of youth protection agrees with the mother for unsupervised contacts three days a week (one day for each child after school or daycare for few hours). [ 24 ] It went fine on September 12, 13 and 14. [ 25 ] Unfortunately, it did not last. On September 20, 2011, the mother does not respect the rules with Y.

She is accompanied by her boyfriend and picks up the child two hours in advance of the schedule. [ 26 ] On September 21, 2011, she is again with her boyfriend and returns Z to the foster family without proper car seating for him. [ 27 ] On September 22, 2011, she leaves with X for Town B, [Province A] without advising the youth delegate and is late bringing back the child. [ 28 ] On September 25, 2011, Mrs A arrives at the foster parent's home to get X for her visit. The foster parents reported Mrs A was crying hysterically and was not wearing any shoes.

The foster parents refused to let her take X for a visit since the mother was not in good condition to have her children for the visit. [ 29 ] On September 25 2011, the Town C Police responded to a suicide call for Mrs A. The mother's boyfriend, B told police Mrs A was unstable and wishes to kill herself. He told police she tried to hang herself in her closet and had orally taken her prescription medication.

Police brought Mrs A to the hospital to have her put under suicide watch. [ 30 ] She did not want to stay at the hospital. [ 31 ] On October 6, 2011, she was brought back again to the hospital because of repeated suicidal threats. [ 32 ] The medical reports also reveal that the mother has a long history of consultations and evaluations at the psychiatric department of the "Centre hospitalier A". [ 33 ] Concerning her attendance on September 26, 2011, the report of Dr Julie Laroche indicates that, between 2003 and 2008, the following diagnosis are as follow :

- Trouble de personnalité borderline sévère ; - Ancien éthylisme - Abus et dépendance polytoxique ; - Trouble de comportement de longue date. [ 34 ] For September 26, 2011, the "impression diagnostique" is the following : - Trouble de personnalité borderline fort probable ; - Toxicomanie ; - Instabilité affective et trouble de comportement chronique (ou du moins récidivant ) ; - Crises plus récentes selon elle ; - Risque suicidaire apparaît faible actuellement mais risque chronique de passage à l'acte auto-agressif ; - Refus catégorique de rester à l'hôpital. [ 35 ] The urine tests at the time are positive to cannabis, benzodiazepine and cocaine. [ 36 ] On October 6, 2011, Dr Philippe Bélanger, psychiatrist, has the following "impression diagnostique" for axe 1 and 2 : Axe I : - Dépendance aux benzodiazépines ; - Abus d'alcool, de THC et de cocaïne ; - Dangerosité auto-agressive jugée élevée actuellement vu la crise dysphorique, les "acting out" répétitifs récents, les intoxications répétées ; - Risque auto-agressif chronique et imprévisible vu le trouble de personnalité limite sévère ainsi que le problème de toxicomanie.

Axe II : Trouble de personnalité limite sévère, rigide, immature, concrète. [ 37 ] These are only few excerpts of the reports filed, however revealing. [ 38 ] As for the children's possible prejudice, here are few excerpts of the psychologist's report of February 9, 2012, concerning X whom he has known for roughly two years : (…) X had lived through separation from her mother due to her mother's psychological disturbances prior during her childhood. She also lived through changing living arrangements, including her more recent foster family changes.

It is fair to say that X has sustained substantial psychosocial and environmental stress factors since her early childhood to this day. (…) X appeared less psychologically disturbed than I have ever seen her before. Although I could assess that she remains a deeply vulnerable child, from a psychological perspective, her symptoms were less severe than when I had assessed her a few years ago.

Still, I can appraise that she is concerned with her mother's absence from her life at present, even if she seems to have come to a naïve understanding that her mother simply cannot be there for her when she needs her. (…) Indeed, X's reports clinical signs that are consistent with long-standing exposure to emotional neglect from primary caregivers, especially her mother, judging from the records. X's mother stands as an identifiable stressor in her life.

She reacts to her mother's presence and absence alike, behaviour patterns that underscore serious attachment issues. (…) Interestingly, this recent period of relative normalcy occurs as her mother has not been directly involved in parenting care for several months. This also tends to suggest that her mother's presence in her environment contributes to her emotional and behavioural disturbance. Based on these observations, there will be a need to structure the relationship between X and her mother or significant

others in a way that secure her mental health and development. Allowing for the extent of X's exposure to problems within her primary support system, especially her mother, since surrounding her birth to this day, there is a need to find long-term living arrangements for her , measures that protects her against the fluctuations in her primary caregivers, namely her mother's ability to actually provide her with the care that she needs. X is a highly vulnerable child .

Although she managed to cope with outstanding challenges up until now, there is a limit to what a child can endure and cope with over an extended period of time before it does irremediable damage to its psychological and moral development . (…) I thereby recommend that long-term living arrangements be sought for X . Seeing ahead a few years is the only way for her to build up security and self-confidence. She needs to feel that no matter if her mother can or cannot be there for her, there will be a responsible and loving parental figure to accompany her through her late childhood and adolescence.

More than ever, what she needs is a safe place to develop sheltered from psychosocial and environmental stress factors, as much as possible. I recommend that child protection services seeks long-term placement in a potentially stable foster family, that is a permanent form of guardianship, especially if a parental capacity assessment demonstrate that her mother as very little chance to ever recover from what ever unfortunate and incapacitating circumstances that she might have faced or coped with in her life.

X's may have access to her mother, again if a parental capacity assessment allows for routine contacts between them two. Based on the results from this evaluation, although X would most certainly appreciate, at least periodically, contacts with her mother, there is evidence that she would seriously struggle to adjust to further parental abandonment and emotional neglect in the future. For that reason alone, I personally feel that it is in X's best interest to seek comfort and support outside the realm of her mother's care, regardless of the mother's personal improvement .

I base this judgment on more than one appraisal of X's psychological development. My confidence in the results of this assessment is high." (our underlinings) [ 39 ] The mother testifies that she attended a detox center for five weeks last January.

She plans to go for another therapy but does not know when. [ 40 ] She plans to attend school in Town B in April to complete high school. [ 41 ] She tries to find a place to live out of Town C. [ 42 ] She says she is sober since November 9, 2011 and that she can do this for her kids as she wants the best for them. [ 43 ] She admits having made mistakes and that she had many chances but "never fix them" . [ 44 ] She says she loves her children and cares for them. [ 45 ] She called the petitioner during the last Holidays period for contacts with her children but supervision could not be organized. [ 46 ] She says she has somebody in her life ; she is living with Mrs C who has five children with her.

She says that she babysits them and are around them everyday. [ 47 ] On closing, her attorney asks her if she wants to add something. She declares that her words won't change anything but her sobriety is important. [ 48 ] She affirms that she does not want to hurt her children anymore and that a placement until majority hurts her.

She tried to get help since her children's placement but "obviously I did not complete it" , she testifies. [ 49 ] She adds that "it feels like no matter how hard I try, I am not going anywhere". [ 50 ] Finally, she testifies that she will get her kids back in less than a year and that she will continue to fight for them, no matter what she has to do. [ 51 ] What to conclude from the whole evidence ? [ 52 ] Since the last court order and, needless to add, since 2009, there is not much improvement. [ 53 ] The only sign is a recent four-month sobriety and a five-week therapy in January. [ 54 ] The mother also attended few counselling sessions during these years like an anger management course in 2010. [ 55 ] However, she never seriously addressed the main problem which leads to substance abuse, to wit her past and her personal issues. [ 56 ] She does not want to submit herself to a regular psychological and psychiatric follow-up : it would certainly enforce her and diminish the risk of emotional and behavioural disturbances which cause prejudice to her children.

[ 57 ] She even missed the October 20 appointment with Dr Laroche after her release from hospital : she forgot and was sleeping although the youth delegate had reminded her several times including the day before. [ 58 ] She prefers to plan schooling. [ 59 ] Mrs A is non compliant, unstable and unpredictable. It is very hard for the social workers and other professionals to work with Mrs A. They did a lot for her over the years on almost a daily basis. [ 60 ] Taking care of children in theses circumstances is risky, for not to say impossible. [ 61 ] At the present time, we are still at the intentions and wishes level. [ 62 ] Changing her place of residence (out of Town

C) is an illusion and problems will normally follow. [ 63 ] The children need stability and foreseeability. [ 64 ]

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act stipulates : "91.1 If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under 2 years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from 2 to 5 years of age on the date the order is made, (c) 24 months if the child is 6 years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis." [ 65 ] Except for her short testimony, the mother did not present any serious evidence that would permit the Court to foresee a change within a reasonable time frame. [ 66 ] She did not even take advantage of most of the scheduled contacts with her children and this was a clear repetition of what is described in the reports submitted to the Court in April 2011.

The children waited so often for their mother's visits and were enough disappointed. [ 67 ] In the circumstances, considering this history of personal problems and neglect and considering that the children have attached themselves, above all psychologically, with their foster families, it is time to order for them a long-term life project. [ 68 ] They deserve it in their best interest. [ 69 ] The foster home's studies reveal that the persons who are taking care of the children are devoted to them and more then willing to engage themselves until their majority. [ 70 ] Theses persons are serious, stable and love the children.

They have experience in child's raising. [ 71 ] They took their decision after due consideration. [ 72 ] The mother has still her place but she must demonstrate that she can be helpful and reliable.

Without repeating here all that the Court said to the mother at the hearing, she must respect the court order and encourage her children to accept it. [ 73 ] She must refrain from any prejudicial comments to her children. [ 74 ] To keep alive the idea of a return of the children is something that Mrs A shall keep for herself and refrain to share it with the children as it can be devastating and counter-productive by maintaining them in a conflict of loyalty.

[ 75 ] Hopefully, Mrs A will, one day, come in peace with her. However, the children can wait no more. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 76 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 77 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family and ORDERS that the foster family be the one of D and E, as chosen by the Director of youth protection after evaluation and clarification of a long-term life project for the child ; [ 78 ] ORDERS that all contacts between the mother and the child be planned and authorized by the Director of youth protection as well as their modalities and that they be supervised by a third person designated by the Director of youth protection if necessary ; [ 79 ] ORDERS that the mother benefits from a drug, substances and alcohol assessment and a follow-up or treatment program as recommended by the concerned professional before maintaining contact with her children ; [ 80 ] ORDERS that the mother be sober when in the presence of her child ; [ 81 ] ORDERS that the mother continues to receive services for anger management ; [ 82 ] ORDERS that the mother involves herself in a psychological and in a psychiatric follow-up for as long as deemed necessary by the professionals ; [ 83 ] ORDERS that the mother be present at the meetings set by and with the Director of youth protection intervener and behave properly ; [ 84 ] DELEGATES to D and E all legal authority concerning any consent or authorization to be given regarding X's needs especially health services, education, leisure activities and passport ; [ 85 ] PERMITS the Director of youth protection to confirm by writing to D and E this delegation of the Court mentioned previously ; [ 86 ] ORDERS to any holder of X's medical record to give access to it to the Director of youth protection until the child is 14 years old ; after, it will be with the consent of the child or the order of the Court ; [ 87 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X, her mother if she asks for it and her foster family ; [ 88 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until […], 2022 (date of her majority) for the carrying out of the present measures. __________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith,

for the petitioner Me Andrée Rioux, for the child Me Mathieu Racine, for the mother