2019 QCCQ 15620, 2019 QCCQ 15620

Protection de la jeunesse — 195047 2019 QCCQ 15620 JB5047 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-000932-152 DATE : May 16, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on […], 2009 [ SOCIAL WORKER 1 ] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, working at […], district A; Applicant -and- A , […] -and- B , Unknown address; Child’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the order rendered on May 23, 2018, be revised. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared that the security and development of the child was compromised for the motives of neglect on physical and educational levels and serious risk of neglect. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Tribunal entrusted the child to a rehabilitation centre, authorized contacts with her mother and that their frequency and modalities, including the level of supervision, be determined by the Director, taking notice that they would be modulated according to the advice of professionals and ordered other measures including a social follow-up for a period of one year. [ 4 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and development of the child are still compromised for the same motives. [ 5 ] Because of the alleged new facts, the Director recommends that the protective measures be revised in order that the child remain entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, that integration to a foster family be authorized according to the evolution of the situation, to authorize supervised contacts with her mother, authorizing the lifting of the supervision if the situation allows it, to take notice that the Director intends to clarify a long-term plan for the child excluding any return to her parents’ care and to order a social follow-up for a period of one year.

[ 6 ] During the hearing of May 16, 2019, the mother is present and represented. She is agreement with the recommendations of the Director. She only demands that her contacts with X be more frequent, once every two weeks. [ 7 ] The Director counters this request by stating that he would agree to augment the contacts to once every 3 weeks, but for a longer period of time (duration). [ 8 ] The father is absent as usual.

The Court allows that Director to proceed in his absence. [ 9 ] The child’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence and reading the reports, is in agreement with the recommendations and proposition of the Director. [ 10 ] She mentions that contact with the mother should be maintained at the same frequency but can be prolonged. Supervision still needs to be maintained. Question in Litigation [ 11 ] Do the recommended measures answer the needs of the child and are they in her best interest?

More particularly, what should be the modalities and frequency of the contacts with her mother? evolution of the situation [ 12 ] X remained at House A until October 2018, when she integrated [Unit A]. [ 13 ] She adapted well and is evolving positively in her new living environment. [ 14 ] She has formed trusting relationships and positive bonds with the staff and benefits from the consistent routine and rituals. [ 15 ] She is still developing her ability to engage in social relationships with her peers. [ 16 ] In June 2018, a trauma assessment was completed by a psychologist who diagnosed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. [ 17 ] This add to her previous diagnosis of ADHD, oppositional-defiant disorder, reactive attachment disorder and multiple learning difficulties. [ 18 ] As for her contacts with her mother, up until recently, X benefitted of monthly supervised visits with her mom as well as weekly telephone calls. [ 19 ] The mother has been supportive of the [Unit A] staff and encourages X consistently. [ 20 ] As was discussed at the hearing for the last court order, X needed to come to terms with the fact that she was not returning home to her mother nor to her previous foster home. [ 21 ] On March 26, 2019, X was so informed by the delegate. [ 22 ] X continues to actively work on her emotional expression, controlling feelings of mistrust and developing her ability to express herself without being aggressive when she is angry. [ 23 ] The mother also has difficulties in controlling her emotions and can sometimes have strong reactions that create a negative impact on X. [ 24 ] In August 2018, the mother underwent a psychological assessment. [ 25 ] The conclusions of this assessment are to the effect that the mother has come impairment to her intellectual capacities.

Deductive and logical thinking are the most affected by her lower borderline range intellectual potential. [ 26 ] The psychologist evaluate her personal functioning this way: « At a personal level, Mrs. A appears to be functioning on two different levels. At the surface, she puts forth an infantile character displaying herself as helpless and victimized. This ‘layer’ of her personality however appears to be a defence character aimed at keeping in check more severely impaired aspects of her personality, namely paranoid features with persecution and fragmentation anxieties.

When faced with ambiguous or stressful situation, contact with reality may be weakened and unrelated details may be weaved together in a perceived threat. The issue of suspiciousness was in fact raised in the 2003 evaluation, but may then have been underestimated given the methods used. Mrs. A also appears as suffering from trauma, and is constantly overwhelmed by this past, to the point of losing focus of the present. In terms of orientation and intervention, Mrs. A’s personal dynamics appear to pose a major obstacle to her taking care of children.

Although she may at times be able to identify her children’s needs, she risks losing sight of these and become engulfed in her own experience. Her anxieties, her cognitive limitations, along with a brittle sense of reality are likely to impair her judgment and capacity to make sound decisions for herself and her children, and keep her from providing them with a stable environment and care, both materially and affectively.

Her difficulties appear to be of a chronic nature and are unlikely to subdue, even more so given the fact that she has sought little help in the past despite her losing custody of her children one after the other. Hence, returning Mrs. A’s children to her care seems very unlikely at this stage. »

[ 27 ] The psychologist goes on to say that visits with her children should remain supervised in order to prevent the mother to become overwhelmed or make unsafe decision. [ 28 ] The mother has not approved of this evaluation. [ 29 ] Nonetheless, the mother could benefit from a psychological follow-up. [ 30 ] Furthermore, it appears that X still does not understand that she will not be returning to her mother or her foster parent’s care. [ 31 ] The Director will have to make the child understand in words that are undoubtedly clear. [ 32 ] Other than that, the Court is glad that X is doing so much better since she is at [Unit A] which is a very good program that answers her needs. [ 33 ] The mother as evolved too.

She is no longer fighting the placement of X. She has to be on board especially if X is to integrate a new foster home setting. [ 34 ] This being said, it appears too soon to lift the supervision altogether for the mother’s contacts. A partial supervision during activities at the centre will be allowed. [ 35 ] It is also too early to increase the frequency of visits. The Court will set a minimum to once a month for a duration of 3 hours. [ 36 ] The present judgment completes and confirms each and every observations that were made on the bench in presence of the parties.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT : GRANTS PARTIALLY the present application; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger regarding: - 38 b) 1̊ i): neglect of basic physical needs; - 38 b) 1̊ iii): neglect on educational level; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger regarding: - 38 b) 2̊: serious risk of neglect; REVISES the Court order rendered on May 23, 2018, in the present file; ENTRUSTS the child X to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre; TAKES NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection’s choice is the [Unit A]; AUTHORIZES the child’s integration into a foster family according to the evolution of the situation; AUTHORIZES , in the child’s favour and in her best interest, supervised contacts with her mother, according to the modalities established by the Director of Youth Protection concerning the terms, the frequency and the lever of supervision with a minimum frequency of once per month for a duration of three hours; AUTHORIZES unsupervised contacts in the context of organized activities; TAKES NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s intention to clarify a long-term project for the child X, excluding her return to her parents’ care and excluding a return to her former foster home care; ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; ORDERS that the mother inform the Director of Youth Protection of any change in her situation; RECOMMENDS to the mother to take steps to address her personal issues; ORDERS that the child receive all health services she may require; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child X and her family for a period of one year; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Sarah-Maude Renaud Counsel for the DYP

M e Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the child M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Date of written judgment : August 7, 2019, Exhibits deposited : D-19 to D-21