2012 QCCQ 17408, 2012 QCCQ 17408

2012 QCCQ 17408 Protection de la jeunesse — 126775 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] CITY OF […] « Youth Division »

N os : 640-41-000843-059 640-41-000844-057 DATE: May 24, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE [INTERVENANTE 1], J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN: X Born on […], 2002 Y Born on […], 1998 [INTERVENANTE 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A(Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in Town A(Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A(Quebec), district A; Father of X -and Father of Y, (undeclared). ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) submits to the Court a motion for revision of two decisions: one rendered in Y's situation on November 11, 2011 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais in which he entrusted Y to a reception center for a period of six (6) months; one in X's situation rendered on March 6, 2007 by Justice Daniel Bédard in which he entrusted X to a foster family until his majority. [ 2 ] Today, the Director recommends that Y be entrusted to a reception center for a period of eight (8) months with a reintegration in a foster family in the next two (2) months. [ 3 ] For X, the Director recommends that he be entrusted to a reception center (group home in Town

B) for a period of six (6) months.

[ 4 ] The father is absent. He sent a letter in which he says he is not X's father and for these reasons he wants his name to be withdrawn from the birth certificate. [ 5 ] As for the mother, she says she will seek treatment for her drinking problem, but does not agree to have a psychological follow- up. At the beginning of the hearing she agrees with what is recommended.

However, her position evolved later on in the hearing and she finally disagreed for X's placement at the group home. [ 6 ] As for Y, after having understood the social worker's intent to integrate him in the next two (2) months in his foster family, the lawyer said that Y is now agreeing with what is recommended. Y would prefer a foster family in his community, Town B, but understands that it might be difficult to find one there. He heard that a foster family might be found in Town B where his younger brother is presently living.

This is not a bad «second best plan» he believes. [ 7 ] As for X, he wants to go back to Town A in a foster home. [ 8 ] In X's situation, after a short recess of the hearing, X's lawyer informs the Court of new facts. X would have been physically abused by C, the educator from the group home. That would have happened a month ago, in the Courthouse waiting room, but other incidents would have occurred.

The lawyer informs the Court that both children have seen one of the incidents. [ 9 ] The Director of Youth Protection's office was never informed of these events. [ 10 ] Accordingly, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the Court decided to suspend the case to the next day in order to allow the Director to evaluate this new report. [ 11 ] The next day, the Court gets the

summary analysis from Mrs. D, a social worker from a different community who evaluated the situation. [ 12 ] Mrs. D met the two children, the mother, Y's educator who witnessed one of the events, the nurse, the children's social worker, Mrs. [social worker 1], the Town B social services' educator, Mrs. E and the educator from the group home who would have abused physically X, C (by phone). [ 13 ] Mrs.

D concludes that the two incidents reported are not physical abuse in the sense of Youth Protection Law. [ 14 ] For the first incident, X who is a very active child was quite disorganized in the court's waiting room. At one point, he came to leave the Courthouse without permission. The educator took him by the arms and sat him down on his seat.

This would have left two scratches on his arm which the brother and the mother saw. [ 15 ] That day, nobody informed neither the social worker nor the educator about the incident and X was sent back to the group home until the next court date. [ 16 ] The other incident occurred when X wanted to jump from a window to go see his mother that he was seeing coming out of the hotel. As he was about to fall off from the window, C took him away to avoid an accident and held him on the bed to stop him from acting out. [ 17 ] Today, a month after, the mother is now preoccupied by the situation.

She asked her children to tell these events to their lawyer for her to tell the Court. [ 18 ] The mother says X should not be sent back to the group home. [ 19 ] The Director of Youth Protection considers that both incidents were necessary interventions while X was acting out. [ 20 ] The Court comes to the same conclusion. [ 21 ] Though the Court will never encourage any intervention that leaves marks on a child's arm, the context in which these marks occurred explains them. [ 22 ] The two incidents happened in a context where the child was just starting to learn to respect limits and where a responsible educator was attempting to set them. [ 23 ] The Court recalls that X's behavior has deteriorated a lot over the years. [ 24 ] The numerous abuses, physical and psychological, made by the mother over more than 10 years have left serious impact on him. [ 25 ] The two acting out presented by X and reported yesterday are just small illustrations of the impact suffered by the children because of their mother's abuses. [ 26 ] For the Court, the two interventions made by the educator from the group home are a drop in the ocean of what the mother has made her children suffer over the years. [ 27 ] The Court believes that the mother should stop blaming others for her children's problems and look into her own backyard to see what she could change in order to become a model for her children. [ 28 ] When any educator is trying to impose some limits to her child, limits she was never able to impose, the Court would wish to see a supportive mother.

[ 29 ] This being said, the Court reminds the remarkable progress made by Y over the last months. [ 30 ] Y is a very smart boy. He is successful in school. He now shows better respect towards authority and is attending school on a regular basis. He has better control over his aggressive behaviors. [ 31 ] Y still needs clear limits to maintain his good behavior. As soon as a less experienced educator is around, he tends to test the limits. [ 32 ] Y has future projects. He wants to become a culture teacher.

This is a dream that can come true if he keeps going in the same direction that he took. [ 33 ] As for X, in Town A where he was first entrusted to a foster family, X's mother would disturb him. X would often run away to be with his mother. X would not perform well in school and would not respect rules. [ 34 ] For these reasons, X was moved to a foster family in Town C, away from his mother, where he improved. [ 35 ] But after a nice start there, on December 2011, the mother visited him in Town C. [ 36 ] While the mother was in Town C, the mother went to the foster home and smoked marijuana with them.

She then said inappropriate things to X. [ 37 ] After that visit, X's behavior deteriorated. He became impulsive, unpredictable and violent with objects and people. He did not respect curfew anymore. He did not go to class.

Despite the increased support of two educators in his classroom, X was finally thrown out of school. [ 38 ] In April 2012, his situation deteriorated to such an extent that X had to be sent to the Town B reception center. [ 39 ] X's psychological evaluation states that he has an ambivalent reactive attachment disorder combined to hyperactivity and a possible syndrome of foetal alcoholism. [ 40 ] As for the mother, there is no change in her situation. [ 41 ] She still struggles with a drinking problem.

She presents inappropriate behaviors and discourses in front of her children that have a negative impact on them. [ 42 ] She does not collaborate with the social worker. [ 43 ] She does not feel responsible for the children's placement. [ 44 ] In March 2012, the police intervened twice because the mother was intoxicated. [ 45 ] The mother smokes pot regularly. She was not even there at the last Court hearing when the situation was called.

The case had to be postponed because she had smoked all night. [ 46 ] The mother's situation has not changed since 2003. [ 47 ] Today, the children need to be protected from their mother who has not made much of a positive contribution to her children's well-being for the last ten years. [ 48 ] It is never too late to change but it would be about time. [ 49 ] For these reasons, the Court believes that the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection are in the best interest of the children.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the present petition; REVISES the decision rendered on March 6, 2007 by Justice Daniel Bédard for X; REVISES the decision rendered on November 11, 2011 by Justice Jean-Pierre Gervais for Y; DECLARES that the security and the development of X and Y continue to be in danger; ORDERS that X be placed in a reception center for a period of six (6) months ; ORDERS that Y be placed in a reception center for a period of eight (8) months with a progressive reintegration in a foster family during the next two (2) months; ORDERS that access and visitation rights of the mother be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection and in

the presence of a third party (in X’s case); ORDERS that a psychological evaluation of Y be done; ORDERS that the children and the mother take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by Court; ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection authorize medical treatment and care of the children, including travel, school and social activities; RECOMMENDS that the mother actively participate in a follow-up therapy for her personal and alcohol issues; RECOMMENDS that the contacts between Y and his step-brother X be encouraged; ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and Y, and for their mother on her demand; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE [INTERVENANTE 1], J.C.Q.

M e Gabriel Gaudreault Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Sarah Plamondon Attorney for the children M e Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 24, 2012