2019 QCCQ 8596, 2019 QCCQ 8596

Protection de la jeunesse — 1918 2019 QCCQ 8596 JB5047 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth division »

N os : 455-41-001185-180; 455-41-001186-188 DATE : January 11, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2015 Y Born on May 7, 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A, [...] Applicant -and- A , [...], Town A, Quebec, [...]; -and- B , [...], Town A, Quebec, [...]; Children’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 security and development of X and Y be declared in danger for the following motives: physical neglect, healthcare neglect and educational neglect.

He is also invoking the motive of psychological ill-treatments in the situation of Y. [ 2 ] Today, the Director is recommending that the children be entrusted to a foster family, to authorize contacts with their parents according to the modalities determined by the Director and to order that aid counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of nine months. [ 3 ] Both parents are present and each represented by a lawyer. [ 4 ] The mother admits the situation of compromission.

She is most opposed to the conclusions as she would wish for the children to be entrusted to her with all measures to help her care for the children. [ 5 ] The father partially admits the situation of compromission, that is the motives of physical ill-treatment for Y, and educational neglect for the two children. He also contests the placement of the children in a foster home. He would like the children to be entrusted to him, but if it can avoid a placement, he would not contest that the children be entrusted to the mother if all protective measures are put in place.

[ 6 ] The children’s lawyer, after hearing the evidence and reading the reports, is in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the security and development of the children in danger for the 4 motives invoked by the Director? In the affirmative, do the recommended measures answer the needs of the children and are they in their best interest?

Context and Analysis the situation of compromission. [ 8 ] The parents are separated and the children are entrusted to their mother by order of the Superior Court since April 3 rd , 2018. [ 9 ] The father has access rights that he exercises every weekend. [ 10 ] Previously, when the parents separated in July 2017, X was under his mother’s custody and Y under her father’s, all according to an agreement between the parents. [ 11 ] The mother has two other children from a previous relationship: A (age 8) and K (age 10). [ 12 ] The 4 children are living with their mother, maternal grandmother (Ms.

C), maternal uncle (Mr.

D) and the spouse of the late maternal grandfather (Ms. E). [ 13 ] The situation of the children was signaled to the Director for reasons of neglect on all levels and for psychological ill-treatment in regards to Y only. [ 14 ] X (3 years old) and Y (4 years old) both display serious developmental delays.

They are under stimulated in both parent’s milieu. [ 15 ] The parents recognise their developmental delays but are not able to offer an explanation and think they are doing everything they can. [ 16 ] The children’s dental hygiene is lacking and their teeth are rotten. [ 17 ] The father even reports that X refuses to eat and blames the mother for not taking care of the children’s dental health, claiming she gives them bad eating habits. [ 18 ] Y is very active and presents with challenges. [ 19 ] For example, when they tried to assess her development in April 2018, she was so agitated that the process had to be interrupted. [ 20 ] Both parents have personal issues. [ 21 ] The mother has social anxiety disorder for which she takes medication. [ 22 ] She has a low self-esteem and needs to be given many explanation to understand her children’s needs.

When asked to do concrete things she does it. But she is not very autonomous. [ 23 ] She presents difficulty in offering the adequate structure to the children. She acknowledges having no control over them. [ 24 ] She often leaves the children to the care of other family members. [ 25 ] The mother is currently receiving some help for her personal issues. [ 26 ] The father has anxiety disorder for which he is medicated.

He also says he often feels weak and is in pain which affects his capacity to move around or take care of the children. [ 27 ] He is inadequate in exercising parental control when the children misbehave. He can yell at them and spank the children or threaten them. [ 28 ] When in the father’s care, the children are physically neglected in that the environment in which they live is disorganised, unsafe and in serious need of renovation.

The father recognizes this situation. [ 29 ] The father has financial difficulties and some services have been unpaid for some time as Hydro-Québec threatens to cut off electricity. [ 30 ] On March 24 th , 2018, the police was called as there was loud music coming from his apartment and the father was yelling continuously after his daughter. [ 31 ] The father was witnessed by the police officer as very inebriated with alcohol. It was also noticed that the apartment was in disorder and unhealthy. [ 32 ] Y’s was present and only wearing underwear. Her room solely had a mattress on the floor without any sheets.

The father

admitted to having consumed Gin and that he was playing heavy metal music to help his daughter calm down and fall asleep. [ 33 ] During the inquiry, the mother also claimed that Y was locked in her room daily from age 1 to 4 when at her father’s home. The child had minimal interactions with others and had to play alone in her room. The father would get angry if she made noise or otherwise bothered him. [ 34 ] The process of the entente multisectorielle was triggered. The mother and the maternal grandmother confirmed that Y was only allowed to come out of her room for meal time. [ 35 ] Ms.

C even mentioned that when Y woke up in the morning, the father who had gone to bed late stomped to the bedroom door yelled at the little child slapped her and closed the door, locking it and going back to bed. [ 36 ] She also said that the father would yell and spank X, hard enough to make him cry because he was banging his head. [ 37 ] The father denies having locked Y in her room all the time. He claims that the lock was already in the room when he got into this apartment and that he locked her in sometimes for her safety and mainly at night. Sometimes also when he was not feeling well.

He also claims that the lock was there only for 1 year. [ 38 ] But he admits that his daughter barely holds in place for a few seconds and that because of his back pain he cannot run after her and that he feels helpless when he needs to contain her. [ 39 ] The Court believes that the father minimizes this issue. Y’s behaviour and the testimonies of other people living with the parents lead the Court to believe that Y was in fact locked up for many hours and mistreated by her father. [ 40 ] Since the involvement of the Director, the children started to attend daycare.

On August 27 th , 2018, they started attending a CPE on a regular basis. [ 41 ] At daycare, Y was observed as being unable to socialize. She strongly reacts to routine and framing and has even tried to escape by jumping the fence. [ 42 ] Her language is very limited and she mixes French and English. She tends to imitate animals to communicate. [ 43 ] X, at 3 years old only says 3 or 4 words. He always repeats the same movement and has particular style of walking.

His global and fine motor skills are not up to par. [ 44 ] It also appears that X has developed some sort of addiction to the IPAD on which he plays for hours on end when he is at his mother’s place. [ 45 ] On September 12 th , X had a dentist appointment. He was observed as having generalised cavities.

A further appointment with a specialist who said that he will need to be under general anesthesia to have his teeth extracted. [ 46 ] The Court is convinced that the children are subject to serious physical, healthcare and educational neglect from their parents as alleged by the Director. [ 47 ] Furthermore, the Court retains from the evidence that Y was the object of psychological ill-treatment by her father. the measures [ 48 ] From a young age, Y was confined to her room when she was too disruptive, she was yelled at and slapped by her father in front of her mother who was not able to protect her. [ 49 ] The little girl shows important deficiencies due not only to lack of stimulation by both parents but also by a lack of attention and kindness, by isolation and inadequate structure.

She was often tagged as the disruptive child. [ 50 ] She also lacks social skills. She will go to strangers without holding back and communicates by giving orders. [ 51 ] X shows developmental delays as well from the lack of simulation and such poor dental hygiene that it hurts for him to eat.

Not to mention his addiction to his IPAD. [ 52 ] The question the Court has to answer is: is it possible to maintain the children in their parent’s care and put in place measures that would aim at putting an end to the situation of compromission? (art. 4 Youth protection Act). [ 53 ] One important element that the Court has to consider is the length of time the children have been neglected. [ 54 ] It is a principle of the law that the people who make decision for the children must act diligently to ensure the child’s protection, considering that a child’s perception of time differs from that of adults (art.2.4 par. 5 Youth protection Act). [ 55 ] The parents have shown that even when services are in place they had difficulty taking the steps needed and instead, blamed each other according to who had the children in his care at the moment. [ 56 ] The father has great personal needs for which he should attend before he is able to meet the children’s.

Even he acknowledges that. [ 57 ] The mother has not been a protective element in the children’s lives. In fact, even if she knew all the issues regarding the father, she continued on sending her children to him.

[ 58 ] Her limited understanding of her children’s needs and her natural mistrust of things she does not fully understand makes her take bad decisions for her children and sometimes refuse services. [ 59 ] For example, when she was offered to have X tested for autism she refused. [ 60 ] The mother also claims she tried to see a dentist, but that he said the children were too young. This was most probably a misunderstanding on the mother’s part. [ 61 ] Even now with services around her, it is still difficult for her to stimulate her children. [ 62 ] Although the maternal grandmother and Ms.

E are of great help to the mother and have good intentions toward the children, they also have limited capacities. [ 63 ] The maternal grandmother and Ms.

E both have different conditions that makes it painful for them to walk. [ 64 ] Furthermore, the Court is very concerned that even though they were aware of the state of the children, they did not involve themselves sufficiently to compensate for the parent’s neglect. [ 65 ] And, there are so many delays to catch up. [ 66 ] There was a psychosocial evaluation done for this family on June 12 th 2018 for the Superior Court process. [ 67 ] Even this expert has some doubts in terms of mother’s capacity to sufficiently support the children for them them to develop: « As for Y and X, I believe that they both have been lacking some form of stimulation (specifically in the area of communication) and both have been referred to the 2-4 program at the CLSC in Town A.

However, I believe X needs to be assessed to determine if his behaviour can be explained by developmental delays or if there are cognitive limitations that play a role in his behaviour. When it comes to Y, I believe that she has the potential to make up for some of her developmental delays. However, she also needs to be provided with an environment that can offer not only stimulation, but structure and rules. Both X and Y need to be taught to follow rules and understand that there are limits to what they can and can’t do.

I strongly believe that Aliyah, Y and X will need to be accompanied by the significant adults in their lives if we are to expect to see any progress. However, this entails that the women, particularly A, will have to put in a significant amount of effort to support her children. » [ 68 ] The Court is of the same advice as the Director. It is already late to start compensating for the serious neglect. We do not believe that neither parent is able to meet this challenge in due time for the children. [ 69 ] So the answer to the question is negative.

A placement in a foster home must be put in place to ensure the security and the development of the children. [ 70 ] Despite the parents’ good will and their collaboration, it is their capacity that is at stake. The children cannot wait for them to be ready to answer all their needs. [ 71 ] During the present order, the Director will have to work with the parents in order for them to maintain positive contacts with the children to preserve the emotional tie that links them. [ 72 ] The present judgement 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 the application; DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are in danger under the following motives: - 38 b)1◦(i): physical neglect (father failing to meet the children’s basic needs); - 38 b)1◦(ii): healthcare neglect (failing to give the children the care required for their physical or mental health; - 38 b)1◦(iii): educational neglect (lack of stimulation from both parents, and inappropriate attitude and reactions from both parents; For Y: - 38 c): situation of psychological ill-treatment; ORDERS the placement of the children to a foster family designated by the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES , in favour of the children, contacts with their parents according to the modalities determined by the Director of Youth Protection; ORDER that the children continue to attend daycare; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; ORDERS that the children receive all specific health care and health services required by their situation;

ORDERS that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family for a period of nine months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the children M e Gilles Globensky Counsel for the mother M e Caroline Rosa Counsel for the father Date of hearing : November 27, 2018 Motives signed: January 11, 2019 Exhibits deposited : D-1 to D-8