2020 QCCQ 13465, 2020 QCCQ 13465

Protection de la jeunesse — 209407 2020 QCCQ 13465 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002424-205 DATE: November 24, 2020 (written judgment rendered on January 18, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2020 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, presently detained at the Detention Center [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on [...], 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2020.

At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family for a maximum of six months. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and recommends to entrust him to a foster family with a gradual reintegration under the care of the parents if the situation allows it, until September 30, 2021. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Éliane Villemur.

She recognizes that the situation of her son remain endangered and she agrees with the measures, but asks for more contacts. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Sarah Plamondon. He recognizes that his son’s situation remain endangered and he also agrees with the measures, but also asks for more contacts. [ 5 ] X, who is ten months old, is absent, but represented by Me Angèle Tommasel. After hearing the evidence, Me Tommasel submits to the Court that the situation of the child is still endangered and that the recommended measures are in his best interest.

Me Tommasel also insists on the fact that it would be in the interest of the child that an Inuit foster family be found. History of the Situation [ 6 ] On March 25, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The evidence revealed that X is the first child of the parents. The parents lived at the paternal grandparents’ place. The mother was unemployed before the birth, but she found a job at the beginning of March at the elder’s house. The mother suffers from schizophrenia. The father has a job at the supervised apartments. [ 7 ] The mother gave birth in Town A.

The day after the birth, the mother left the hospital against medical opinion. She came to see her son twice.

The DYP took an immediate protective measure and entrusted the child to a foster family in Town B. [ 8 ] The parents exercised daily visits with their son, but they need to receive explanation on how preparing the bottle, how to change diapers, etc., and they needed a lot of reminders. [ 9 ] The mother received her last monthly injection ordered by the Court and she accepted to receive a new medication which has to be taken once every three months. [ 10 ] The mother does not have alcohol issues, but the father has and admits it. Both parents admitted some events of conjugal

violence. Both parents consume marijuana. The mother also consumed during the pregnancy and the doctor ignores the consequences of this consumption with the medication she took for her schizophrenia. [ 11 ] The parents had to work on the upkeep of their involvement as they do now, to continue to closely collaborate with the external educator and, for the mother, to undergo to her psychological evaluation to know more about her parental capacity and to be able to intervene properly with her. [ 12 ] According to the parents, the intensity of service provided to them was not as intensive as the DYP worker says.

The mother would prefer to receive services from the Social Services than from the DYP. She informed the Court that she had a brain tumour, The DYP worker was not aware of. [ 13 ] The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family for a period of six months, with a minimal regime of contacts with the parents.

The Court also authorizes unannounced visits, orders that the external educator meet with the parents twice a week, orders that the mother undergo to a psychological evaluation, and that the parents receive explanation regarding the impact of their drug consumption on their child’s development. Facts [ 14 ] After the last order, X had been maintained with Ms. C. He was doing well, but his health had to be closely monitored because of being born prematurely. [ 15 ] Ms. C still also had the mandate to act as an external educator in X’s situation and she helps the mother to improve her parental capacities.

On this aspect some improvements are noted, but the mother still seems to have learning difficulties which impose to frequently remind the mother about what was taught to her. As long as the mother does not understand the reason of a request, or a danger, she is unable to apply the strategy given to her. [ 16 ] The psychological evaluation of the mother, ordered by the Court to know more about her conditions, was not done yet due to Covid-19 pandemic. This evaluation is still needed to be able to properly intervene with the mother. [ 17 ] The mother also improved her collaboration with the DYP.

She communicated with the DYP worker when she had questions or concerns about X, but this good collaboration could be irregular. [ 18 ] The mother took her last 3-month injection in January 2020, and since then she refuses to take more. [ 19 ] The mother pressed charges against the father for conjugal violence and he had been detained down South.

The mother told the DYP worker that she want her baby back home and doing so, she cannot tolerate anymore violence nor alcohol consumption in the house. [ 20 ] The parents continued to consume marijuana and during the unannounced visit from the Director of Youth Protection, while X is at his parents’ place, the odour of marijuana was very present and twice, the parents were seen smoking with their baby in their arms. [ 21 ] Considering the mother was not taking anymore her medication, her situation started to degrade.

She lost her stability and the schizophrenic symptoms reappeared (signs of religious delirium, paranoia, verbal aggressiveness, loss of contact with reality and high lability). The mother had been hospitalized and, on September 17, 2020, she had been transferred to Douglas Institute. [ 22 ] At the time of the hearing, both parents were back in Town B and they exercised a few contacts with their son. The DYP plans to maintain supervised contacts and to establish a calendar of visits.

With the time, the contacts should be possible at home, but spot checks will be performed. [ 23 ] The evidence also shows that, as mentioned, X was entrusted to Ms. C. Ms. C is responsible for the specialized foster family in rotation with another lady. When Ms. C was present, the parents had a lot of contacts and, as mentioned, the relation was very good. In July, the mother’s situation degenerated and her behaviour became problematic. While Ms.

C was in vacation in August, the mother came at the specialized foster family and was disrespectful with the other lady who renounces to continue to take care of X. [ 24 ] At the hearing the mother requests that the child be entrusted back under Ms. C’s care. The DYP is open to ask Ms. C if she would accept. She is again in vacation, so this request will be made when she is back. Since her last vacation, she came back in Town B, but she was not asked to foster X to avoid a transfer.

Today the DYP is open to do it. [ 25 ] The DYP worker indicated that, for now, a life not plan is not in preparation, but at the same time, she mentions that the contacts with the parents should be reduced because a reintegration is not considered. Questioned by the Court, she recognized that those assertions are contradictory and she explains that as the contacts are supervised it is not possible to organized contacts from 9 to 5 every day at the DYP office. The DYP worker mentions that if Ms. C is available to foster X and also available for the supervision as she made before, the DYP will agree.

Analysis [ 26 ] In the last decision, the Court mentioned the aspects the parents have to work on. They were, at that time, very present with their child. Today the Court can see that they worked on some aspects, but it is obvious that there is still work to be done. [ 27 ] At the beginning of the measures, the parents exercised a lot of contacts with their child. For sure, this time was very beneficial for them to improve their parental capacity, but also to demonstrate their love to their son.

They created an attachment with their son, and X reacts very positively when he sees his parents. [ 28 ] During summer, the situation changed for different reasons. The mother lost her stability. Her refusal to take her medication is

the main reason if this degradation. Because of her behaviour, a conflict occurred between her and the caregiver. During this time, the father was detained and unable to exercise any access. [ 29 ] The Court is concerned by the facts that Ms. C was not asked to foster the child when she came back after her summer vacations. It is very difficult to understand, considering that the parents requested the return of the child to Ms.

C and the DYP is open to that. [ 30 ] As mentioned in the previous decision, the intervention in Youth Protection matter should be adapted to the parents’ situation and their capacity to understand. For this reason, and being aware of her limitations, the mother had accepted to undergo a psychological evaluation. It had not been possible to perform the evaluation due to Covid-19 and the mother’s hospitalization, but that does not mean that this evaluation is not required anymore.

It is still relevant and it will have to be done. [ 31 ] The best example of the benefice of an adapted intervention is the important improvement the parents made when Ms. C was there and available to provide them with support and guidance as an external educator. [ 32 ] The default to request Ms. C if she consents to foster the child, had prevent the child from being stable in his environment and it also prevented the parents from being helped by a reliable person. [ 33 ] The objective of the law is to put an end to a situation of endangerment. Sometimes, it could be longer to see improvement.

In any case, the objective of the law is only to raise a problematic situation, to entrust the children and to do nothing to improve the situation. [ 34 ] As the DYP worker said, it is incoherent to request a reduction of contacts between the child and the parents because no reintegration is planned and saying at the same time that the DYP does not think about a life plan. [ 35 ] Considering the whole situation, the Court does not agree to conclude today that a reintegration with the parents is impossible and doing so, the Court will not let the DYP decide the frequency of the contacts and will impose, instead, a minimal frequency of contacts. [ 36 ] The objective of the next measures will be, at least, to bring the parents to play an important role in their child’s life if it is not to play a parental role on a daily basis.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] GRANTS the application; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X , born on [...], 2020, are still endangered; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family; [ 40 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection agrees to ask Ms. C if she accepts to foster the child; [ 41 ] If Ms. C accepts, considering the evidence provided to the facts that the best interest of the child recommends that he be entrusted to her, ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Ms.

C as soon as she consents; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] AUTHORIZES minimal contacts of three days a week from 9 am to 5 pm; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child and the family receive the services from an external educator at least twice a week, until the end of the measures; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and services namely physiotherapy and a follow-up by a pediatrician; [ 48 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment be done urgently to evaluate the mother’s parental capacities and learning abilities with the objective, among others, to identify the best way to intervene with her; [ 49 ] ORDERS the communication of the psychological report to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the psychological assessment report be explained to the mother with the assistance of a translator; [ 51 ] ORDERS that the child attend a childcare establishment except during the parents’ access; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 53 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services or any other resources concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 54 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family;

[ 55 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 56 ] THE WHOLE until May 31, 2021; [ 57 ] The parties are informed that the undersigned will be available to hear the revision of this situation according to

section 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act . __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q. Me Karianne Asselin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the child Me Éliane Villemur, attorney for the mother Me Sarah Plamondon, attorney for the father Date of hearing: November 24, 2020