2014 QCCQ 20124, 2014 QCCQ 20124

Protection de la jeunesse — 147956 2014 QCCQ 20124 JL3389 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 525-41-026383-125 DATE : May 27 th , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in his capacity as person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A applicant - and - C , the mother - and - D , the father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 Youth Protection Act, L.R.Q.c.P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 present judgment confirms and motivates in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on May 27 th , 2014. [ 2 ] The Court is seized in conformity with

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act with a demand that the security or development of X be declared to be in danger for the reasons alleged in paragraph 3 of the motion. [ 3 ] Essentially, le Director of Youth Protection sustains: 3.1 Following an order on June 19 th , 2012, rendered by the Honourable Judge Michèle Lefebvre from the Court of Québec, Youth Division , the child’s siblings are being followed by the Director of Youth Protection; 3.2 On July 3, 2012, the child’s situation was signalled in relation with the situation of risk of negligence; 3.3 In August 2012, the child sustained a traumatic lesion under his tongue which was caused by the mother;

3.4 On September 24 th , 2012, the mother telephoned the youth protection educator involved with the child’s siblings to inform that the child had injured his arm; 3.5 On September 25 th , 2012, Ms. [Social Worker 2] , the youth worker assigned to the case of X , went to the family home and observed that the child had a swollen arm and that he was unable to move this arm; 3.6 The child was brought to the hospital where it was diagnosed that the child sustained a traumatic fracture on his right arm; 3.7 This fracture was diagnosed to be one (1) to two (2) weeks old; 3.8 During this period, the child was cared for by the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother; 3.9 On September 26 th , 2012, upon further investigation, the hospital found that the child suffered from 18 fractures, including a cranial fracture and a fracture at the right leg; 3.10 The explanations provided by the parents are incompatible with the child’s sustained injury; 3.11 In March 2012, B , the child’s sibling, sustained four (4) unexplained fractures; 3.12 The child remains in the hospital, but on September 26 th , 2012, immediate protective measures were invoked and youth protection worker asked that the parents not be left alone with the child; [ 4 ] X ’s father has two other children from a previous union, Y (4 years old) and Z (2 years old) whose situations are also before the Court.

The mother of Y and Z was married to Mr. D until her death under tragic circumstances which occurred on December 15 th , 2011. [ 5 ] X ’s mother , has also two other children, A (8 years old) who’s father is undeclared and B (5 years old) who’s father (

E) had been deported back to his country of origin at the start of this hearing. The Director of Youth Protection is involved in the situation of these two (2) children and the undersigned was seized with their case in June 2012 for reasons that will be explained further along; [ 6 ] Given that the situation of the children of both of X 's parents, is linked to the events surrounding the case of X , with the consent of the parties, the Court proceeded to a joint hearing in the case of all 5 children.

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 7 ] A joint hearing into the merits, regarding all 5 children of both parents, began on January 10 th , 2013, and was to last 14 days over a period of 17 ½ months. [ 8 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) sought to establish that X had been submitted to physical abuse having sustained 18 unexplained fractures of different ages over a period of 3 months. Furthermore, given that the child had been in the sole care of his mother, his father and his maternal grandmother, the DYP postulated that the parents' other children were at risk of being submitted to physical abuse.

Additional causes for concern were also alleged regarding X 's four half-siblings: A , B , Y and Z . The DYP recommended foster care placement for all 5 children. [ 9 ] The mother denied having mistreated X . Given the nature of his injuries, she did not contest X 's placement. She further accepted that her elder children A (8 years old) and B (5 years old) be entrusted into foster care. [ 10 ] The father denied having mistreated X . He did not contest X 's placement.

With respect to his other 2 children, Y (4 years old) and Z (2½ years old) he denied all allegations of neglect and sought to have his children returned to his care.

PRELIMINARIES The signalement X [ 11 ] The situation of X came to the attention of DYP on September 25, 2012, when the child, then 3 months old, was brought to the A Hospital with a swollen arm. [ 12 ] The baby’s arm was found to be broken, and given the nature of the fracture sustained, further investigation was indicated and revealed that the baby had suffered 18 fractures of different ages during his short life. [ 13 ] The mother, who was the only parent present during the hospitalization of the child, was surprised at the number of fractures sustained by her child. She could not explain these fractures.

The explanation she gave for the broken arm, was that her other 3 year old child (

B) had the day before, jumped into the playpen where X lay and must have fallen on the baby's arm. [ 14 ] This explanation was not credible in the doctor's estimation and did not correspond to the type of fracture sustained by the child. A signalement was therefore made to the DYP. Interim measures applied [ 15 ] On September 27 th , 2012, a provisional measure was ordered, entrusting X upon his discharge from the hospital, to a confidential foster home, where he remained for the duration of the hearing into the merits.

A AND B [ 16 ] The evaluation of the signalement revealed that the mother's two elder children ( A , and

B) were known to the DYP. In March 2012, B , then 2½ years old, had been brought to the hospital with a broken arm and was found to have sustained 3 previous untreated fractures to his arm. The mother explained that she had brought the child to the clinic before when she noticed swelling, and though given x-rays of the child's arm and told to go to the hospital, she had not been told that it was broken. [ 17 ] She was at the time separated from the children's father ( E ).

She was also 6 months pregnant with X , and although she identified the father of her unborn child as being D , she denied being in a marital or romantic relationship with him. [ 18 ] After a brief period of placement, and given the positive results of a psychological assessment of the mother's parental capacities, on June 19, 2012, both A (then 7 years old) and B (then 3) were returned to their mother's care, under the condition that the maternal grandmother (Mrs.

F) reside with them. The mother gave birth to X shortly after, on [...] , 2012. Interim measures applied [ 19 ] On September 25 th , 2012, immediate protective measure were applied and both children were entrusted to a foster home, given the seriousness of the injuries found on their half-brother. [ 20 ] On September 27 th , 2012, they were both entrusted to a foster home under a provisional compulsory order. They were both placed in the same foster home of Ms. G .

B has remained there for the duration of the hearing. [ 21 ] However, in October, 2012. the foster mother complained that A was aggressive towards his brother and difficult to handle. On October 23 rd , 2012, the provisional compulsory order was revised and A was moved to A House group home where he was to remain for the duration of the hearing. Y AND Z [ 22 ] The father of X , as mentioned, is D .

He is also the father of Y (2½ years old at the time of the signalement) and Z (11months old at the time of the signalement). [ 23 ] The DYP was not previously involved with this family, although the father was receiving services from the CLSC, given that he was raising his children on his own. His wife, the mother of these 2 children, had died on December 15, 2011, at the age of 29, in mysterious circumstances. She was found by the father and his children, drowned in the bath tub of their home.

The coroner's report (D- 2), dated September 21, 2012, indicated no signs of violence, no alcohol, drugs or medication in her blood, and no evidence of intervention by a third party. It concluded that it was a violent death, caused by unexplained drowning. [ 24 ] Given the serious nature of the baby's injuries and their unexplained cause and given that the father had been one of the three people who had cared for the baby since his birth, a signalement was also made regarding the father's 2 other children Y and Z .

Interim measures applied [ 25 ] Immediate protective measures were applied on September 28 th , 2012, and the children were entrusted to a confidential foster home. These measures continued to apply by consent, pending a hearing on further interim measures, given that the father was asking for his children to be returned to his care, and if not, that they be entrusted to a family member of his suggestion. [ 26 ] The hearing on interim measures was held on December 5 th , 2012.

The evidence revealed that while the father was receiving services from the CLSC since the death of his wife, he was not following through with the services offered him. For instance, the father was referred for mental health services because of difficulty sleeping, anxiety, memory lapses, depression, flash-backs of his wife and difficulties he would have lived in [Country A], his country of origin.

However, he did not follow through with the referral. [ 27 ] A psycho educator from the CLSC also worked with the family from January to June 2012 regarding parental skills, stimulation, structure, routine and organization of the family home. The father was observed to have a lot of difficulty in these areas. Both children were manifesting developmental delays: Y had global developmental delays including serious speech delays. He was registered in the day-care A in January 2012 to help in these areas, but his attendance was sporadic at best and there were weeks when he did not attend at all.

Z was very much underweight (3 rd percentile) and had difficulties with her motor skills. Interventions were scheduled to take place bi-weekly, but the father was often not available or would miss the scheduled appointments. [ 28 ] At the time they were placed on September 28, 2012, both children were observed to be undernourished and presenting severe developmental delays. [ 29 ] In the first few months of placement, Y and Z underwent a number of different placements.

From September 28 to December 5th, 2012, they were entrusted to a confidential foster home, under Immediate Protective Measures which measures were extended by Court order (art. 76.1 ;79) on October 19, 2012. [ 30 ] On December 5th, 2012, the Court did not return the children to the care of the father, but ordered they be entrusted to the care of Ms. H , a person the father presented as his aunt, who was to be assisted by her own adult daughter in caring for the children.

This home environment had been assessed as appropriate to receive the children temporarily as a provisional measure, pending the hearing into the merits.

[ 31 ] On January 31 st 2013, a 2 nd motion was presented by the DYP to revise the interim placement order of December 5th, 2012, and entrust both Y and Z to their maternal aunt Ms. I . As the father was contesting this request, the Court interrupted the main hearing and heard the evidence on this motion. [ 32 ] The evidence showed that Ms. H appeared overwhelmed with the care of both children. She was unable to bring Y to the day- care as she had committed to, since she was uncomfortable to walk in the snow with the children.

Her daughter was busy with her studies and not as helpful in caring for the children as first anticipated. It was also revealed that Ms. H was not a family member, neither an aunt nor a cousin as the father had said, but merely a friend. [ 33 ] The Youth Protection worker further observed while visiting the home, that the children were not being stimulated, having nothing to play with, they were poorly supervised, they seemed hungry, Ms. H seemed to favour Z holding her in her arms and hugging her, while Y withdrew from her, and went to strangers (DYP worker). [ 34 ] Around this same time, Ms.

I , the children's maternal aunt, contacted DYP, having just been informed that the children were in care. It turned out that the children had been prevented from seeing their maternal relatives since their mother's death. The father had cut contacts with his wife's family stating that they were saying he had killed his wife. [ 35 ] Ms. I indicated her interest in looking after the children and asked to visit them. A few visits were arranged at the DYP offices, which went very well. The children responded well to their aunt, played with her and appeared generally comfortable in her presence.

A home assessment was done and she was approved as a potential care-giver for the children. [ 36 ] Given the evidence, the motion to revise the interim placement measure was granted on February 1st 2013, and Y and Z were entrusted to their maternal aunt until the end of the hearing to the merits, with regular weekly supervised visits with their father to occur at the DYP's office. THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO

SECTION 38 (e) (1) (2) [i] [ 37 ] During the course of the hearing, many witnesses were heard and many documents were filed by all parties. Without going into every testimony and report filed, the Court will hereby summarize what it estimates are the essential points and highlights of the evidence. Dr. Alain Sirard [ 38 ] A description of X 's injuries was made by expert witness Dr. Alain Sirard. In his testimony, Dr. Sirard described each of the 18 fractures sustained by the […] month old baby.

These fractures consisted of 3 fractures to the baby's skull and 15 different fractures on other parts of his body including both arms, both legs, both feet, both hands and many fingers. He also had 5 fractured ribs. These fractures were of different ages, different stages of healing and would have gone back to when X was barely 1 month old. [ 39 ] In his testimony, Dr. Sirard was adamant that these injuries were not accidental, could not have been caused by another child (i.e.

X 's siblings) and were the result of physical ill treatment inflicted upon the child by an adult, in his estimation, totally out of control. [ 40 ] Dr. Sirard explained that the fractures to the child's arms and hands could only be the result of having been picked up by his hands and carried that way from one place to another. The fractures to his legs and feet would have been the result of the child being picked up by his feet and shaken, and hit on the legs, given the nature of the fractures.

He described the number of fractures, given the child's age, as having been an "ongoing process". [ 41 ] Many if not most of these fractures were not necessarily visible to the untrained eye. In fact, it was mentioned during the hearing, that the baby had been seen by a paediatrician approximately three times before his hospitalization. There were no bruises or other marks on the baby's body, except for the swelling of his arm for which he was initially brought to the hospital. Asked if a baby, with all these fractures held in someone's arms, would react in pain, Dr.

Sirard answered that it is possible that someone not attentive to trauma, could very well overlook the baby's pain and attribute his crying to any other of the numerous causes for which a baby usually cries. [ 42 ] Dr. Sirard also examined X 's other half-siblings. There were no indications of physical abuse on Y , Z or A .

He did observe that Y had a serious language delay which needed attention, and that Z had an enzyme irregularity which resolved itself, and that she was very slight. [ 43 ] In the case of B , a particular attention was brought to the fact that he had previously, in March 2012, been examined by the Clinique Sociojuridique de l'Hôpital A . B had been brought to the Hospital with a swollen arm, which turned out to be a fractured elbow, very similar to the one suffered by X , complicated by the fact that it had been unattended for over a week and therefore necessitated surgery.

It was also found that he had had 2 or 3 other previously untreated fractures to his arms. These latter ones could have not caused swelling and gone unnoticed by someone not attentive to the child protecting his arm and not using it. [ 44 ] As mentioned, the situation of B had been signalled to the DYP at the time. It was brought to Court and measures had been ordered in June 2012. [ 45 ] The evidence showed that neither of X 's parents were forthcoming during the evaluation of the signalement by the DYP following the child's hospitalization.

They were not truthful about their relationship, how much the father had been involved in her life, being in contact with A and B , about the father's involvement with baby X , how often he would see him or have him in his sole care. [ 46 ] Much of this information came out gradually, during the course of the testimonies given in Court. Thus it was made known that the parents of X met and became involved in the summer of 2011. Unknown to the mother ( C ), the father (

D) was married and his wife was pregnant with Z ; Y was 1½ years old at the time.

The father [ 47 ] Both parents testified on October 8 th and 9 th , 2013. The father testified first. During his testimony, he recognized having had an extra-marital affair with the mother (

C) while he was still living with his wife who was then pregnant with their second child ( Z ). He explained this happened because his wife refused to have sexual relations with him while she was pregnant. He minimized the times he spent with Ms. C , saying he saw her once a week or twice a month, that he did not spend time at her home and that he had not been much in contact with her other 2 sons. He recognized that he did not tell her he was married.

He said he had however, told his wife shortly before she died that that he had made another woman pregnant. [ 48 ] He denied having ever been violent towards his wife during their marriage, although he recognized that the police came to their house a few times. He said his wife phoned the police because while she was pregnant she was often irrational, but when the police arrived, they would see that nothing was happening, and he was never arrested. [ 49 ] Further evidence (exhibit D-11 ( Z and Y )) showed however, that the relationship between the father and his wife was strained at the time.

She had been seeking services at the CLSC in November 2011 stating that her husband was violent toward her, that she often did not know where he was, that he did not help with the care of the children and that she wanted help to change her situation. [ 50 ] After his wife died on December 15, 2011, he continued seeing the mother (

C) and she and her children spent Christmas 2011 at his home along with her mother and brother. Y and Z were also present. [ 51 ] Again, he minimized the nature of his relationship with the mother (

C) and the frequency of their time together. He acknowledged that they had been to City A together for a week-end in March 2012. They had driven to his sister's and had taken with them his 2 children ( Y and

Z) as well as B , while A had stayed in City B with his father ( E ). [ 52 ] It was shortly after this trip, that B had been brought to the hospital with a swollen arm and had been diagnosed with a broken elbow which necessitated surgery because of the delay in attending to the injury. The child had also been found to have 2 or 3 older fractures to his arms that had healed. [ 53 ] He said that after the birth of X ( [...] , 2012), the mother and baby X stayed at his home. The mother left with the baby after a few days and her mother came to live with her and her children X , A and B .

Again he minimized the times he saw X after that, and said he had been alone with the baby only twice and only for a few hours. He said that while the baby was in his care there was only one incident whereby he was changing the baby and had left him on the couch to get a towel in another room. When he came back, the baby had rolled over and was about to fall off the couch but he was able to catch him, and prevent the fall. [ 54 ] When he heard that the baby was hospitalized and had 18 fractures, he said he was shocked, that he adored this child.

He said he did not go to the hospital because he had to look after his other 2 children. [ 55 ] Although he denied causing the injuries to his son and could not explain how they could have happened, the father said he was worried about the grandmother being in the home at the time. He said the mother had told him that the grandmother did not like the baby, and he knew that the mother and grandmother did not get along well. He said he never saw the mother being aggressive toward X .

However, he blamed the DYP saying that were it not for the DYP's neglect, this violence to his son could have been avoided. [ 56 ] The father filed in evidence a psychological assessment report dated April 22, 2013, by psychologist Aïcha Nora Dembri Ph.D. (P-7). The psychologist also testified in Court and was recognized as an expert witness. [ 57 ] In her report, psychologist Dembri states: «Nous avons tenté d'aborder avec Monsieur les grandes lignes de son histoire de vie d'enfance, familiale et socio-culturelle au [pays A], son processus migratoire, son intégration et adaptation au Québec.

Nous avons tenté de reprendre avec lui dans le détail, son histoire de vie personnelle, conjugale et familiale, ainsi que les informations consignées dans les documents qui nous ont été transmis. Au fur et à mesure des rencontres, nous avons eu accès à une narration de l'histoire de vie de M. D où, expériences traumatiques infantiles et socio-culturelles se superposent et se télescopent aux expériences traumatiques présentes. Les éprouvés émotionnels de M. D étaient chargés d'une intense souffrance, et nous le sentons parfois douloureusement atteint par la remémoration de ces moments de vie.

Monsieur est rapidement envahi par la surcharge émotive qu'il tente d'endiguer ou de maitriser en adoptant des conduites cognitives, affectives et comportementales parfois rigides. Inscrits dans un contexte d'expertise, ces échanges ont été connotés de difficultés relatives à un manque de familiarisation mutuelle, à des enjeux dramatiques qui génèrent une crainte de se confier et voire même un sentiment de méfiance légitime dans les circonstances. Les impressions cliniques issues de l'entrevue nous mettent face à une personne bien orientée dans l'espace et le temps et dans la personne.

Par contre lors de moments d'émotions intenses, le contact avec la réalité ambiante tend à se fragiliser et M. D tend à devenir légèrement confus et désorienté dans le temps. Au niveau de la sphère cognitive Au cours de ces rencontres, nous avons pu observer deux modes de fonctionnement différents chez M. D . Lors de périodes moins chargées sur le plan affectif et émotionnel, M. D étant plus calme la compréhension était bonne, le raisonnement et le jugement bien que contaminés par ses pensées obsédantes et sa tourmente mentale, ne manquaient pas de nuance et de finesse d'analyse.

La pensée était cohérente et le contenu en était consistant.

Lors de moment de tension ou d'évocations de souvenirs ou d'expériences douloureuses, le cours de sa pensée devient légèrement altéré et son contenu était très préservatif. Le raisonnement et le jugement sont alors altérés par l'envahissement émotionnel, le discours sensiblement dissocié et les propos parfois tangentiels.» Au niveau de la sphère affective Nous relevons chez M. D la présence d'une souffrance interne et d'émotions douloureuses qui menacent la stabilité affective de Monsieur. Ce dernier tente de maintenir cet équilibre précaire par des mécanismes d'adaptation et des défenses rigides.

Au niveau comportemental M. D a été très assidu à ses rencontres, à chaque fois il nous a averti quand cela lui a été impossible de se rendre à son Rendez-Vous. Son contact est poli et avenant. Par contre nous le sentons parfois évitant et fuyant. Nous relevons alors une certaine réticence à s'impliquer ou à s'engager. Les capacités d'insight ou d'introspection La mentalisation et la symbolisation sont présentes, mais hélas actuellement totalement entravées par les graves préoccupations affectives et mentales de M. D . Cet aspect le rend non disponible à tout travail d'élaboration ou de réflexions.

L'angoisse ou l'anxiété est une angoisse d'anéantissement et de mort. Le système de défense prévalent est de la lignée rigide perfectionniste et obsessionnelle.» [ 58 ] In her report, as well as in her testimony, the expert witness insisted on the fact that although she met the father on 3 occasions, for a total of 10 hours, it was not possible to explore the entirety of the clinical and behavioural elements that surfaced during her meetings with the father, given the time allotted to her. She was therefore guarded in her conclusions and in making recommendations.

Here is how she expresses this: «Vu le temps imparti avant la comparution au tribunal, il nous est apparu totalement irresponsable de pouvoir mener ce travail à terme et donner notre avis comme expert, sur des enjeux non encore, ou partiellement dévoilés mais, dont nous pressentons l'importance, la gravité et l'impact dans l'histoire de vie et dans les difficultés auxquelles M.

D est confronté actuellement.» [ 59 ] Psychologist Dembri did however emit the following provisional diagnosis: «IMPRESSION DIAGNOSTIQUE PROVISOIRE À la lumière des éléments cliniques recueillis en entrevue et aux tests, l'impression diagnostique provisoire serait en faveur d'un Axe I : Trouble Dissociatif de l'Identité suite à des traumas sévères passés et présents. PTSD Chronique Deuil Traumatique Trouble de l'Adaptation avec Humeur dépressive et perturbations des conduites.

Axe II : Trouble de personnalité mixte du clusterA: schizotypal vs paranoïde et du clusterB: narcissique vs limite Axe III : non documenté Axe IV : Stresseurs Psycho-sociaux: multiples: décès dramatique de la conjointe, isolement social, conflits avec environnement de la belle-famille, retrait temporaire de ses enfants, accusations au criminal, démarches légales pour expertise… Axe V : Évaluation Globale du Fonctionnement (EGF):55 » [ 60 ] In her testimony, psychologist Dembri specified that she did not spend much time discussing X with the father. The focus was more on the father and his 2 other children ( Y and

Z) and the fact that they were entrusted to their maternal aunt (sister of his ex-wife). In the course of the expertise, there was some time that had been allotted for a meeting between the father and I (maternal aunt), during which the close-knit relations between the father and his ex-wife's family were brought up, as well as the resentments and suspicions towards him, following her tragic death.

At one point during this meeting, the father became emotionally overwhelmed and asked the psychologist if he could hold her hand, which the expert interpreted as the father's way of keeping in contact with reality in a moment of great stress. [ 61 ] Psychologist Dembri underligned that these ill-feelings towards his ex-wife's relatives are still present with respect to the father and need to be worked out in order to avoid an eventual conflict of loyalty for the children. The expert witness further recommended that the children not be returned to the father's care presently.

The mother [ 62 ] The mother had been subdued since the beginning of the case. She was absent during the testimony of Dr. Sirard and during the first day of the father's testimony. She was present on October 9 th , 2013, and through her attorney, stated that she did not wish to testify on her own behalf, but accepted to submit herself to questions that the attorneys or the Court may want to ask her.

[ 63 ] Thus it came out from her testimony that she had not always been truthful or forthcoming with the Youth Protection workers around many issues. [ 64 ] With respect to her relationship with the father of X. The mother stated that she had met the father at an annual […] event in [Province A] in June 2011. They started seeing each other frequently shortly after. At the beginning, almost every day. The father came to her place often and stayed overnight a few times. He even brought Y a few times and the child stayed to sleep.

During this time the father got to meet her children who were living with her after she separated from their father. [ 65 ] She did not know he was married and was living with his wife. He told her he was living with his mother, that Y was his son, but from an ex-girlfriend who was pregnant again, but not with his child. She did not find out that he had a wife until after her death, and then because she started piecing things together and confronted him until he admitted he had been married.

By then, she was well advanced in her pregnancy with his child. [ 66 ] They carried on their relationship after the death of his wife on December 15, 2011 in the circumstances aforementioned. She stayed at his place a few times and helped with his children. They were together with his and her children, her mother and her brother at Christmas that year. They travelled together to his sister's in City A for a week-end in early March 2012, with her son B and his two children Y and Z . [ 67 ] It was some time after this trip that she dates the end of their relationship as it was.

There had been the intervention of the DYP after she had brought B to the Hospital with a swollen elbow, which turned out to be broken. The discovery of 3 older fractures to his arms. The temporary placement of her 2 sons until they were returned to her care in June 2012 under the condition that her mother come live with her and the children. [ 68 ] She found D (the father) to be "obsessed" always calling her, always wanting to know where she was going, at exactly what time, who with, when she would be back.

He didn't want her to talk to her mother because, although her mother had liked him at the beginning, she came to see through him and often made comments that would upset him. [ 69 ] By then the relationship was over according to her, but they still saw each other. X was born on [...] , 2012, and the father was present. She gave him his name because she wanted her child's father to be involved. [ 70 ] With respect to the father's contacts and involvement with X. The mother stated that the father would come over and see the child 2-3 times a week. He would not stay long.

She also said that he took the child once a week for a few hours, not exceeding 3 hours at a time. He would have therefore been alone with the baby approximately 12 times between the birth of the baby on [...] until he was brought to the hospital on September 25 th , 2012. Quite a lot more than what the father had said. [ 71 ] The mother said she asked him to take the baby because she was so very tired.

At the time, her mother (grandmother) was making unpleasant comments about the baby and how he looked like D (the father), mostly to rile the mother, and therefore the mother did not want the grandmother to look after the baby. The grandmother eventually warmed up to X and came to be more affectionate, but in the beginning it was difficult for the mother to cope with. [ 72 ] She said she never saw the father being aggressive towards X .

However she did report the following incidents during the period of 3 months prior to X 's hospitalization: [ 73 ] One time, when X came back from the father's, he was sleeping and seemed fine. When he woke up she noticed his eye was red. She asked the father if something had happened and he said no. She nonetheless consulted the paediatrician who said the child could have possibly pulled on something and his hand hit his eye. [ 74 ] Another time, the father told her the baby had fallen off the couch. He had left him on the couch and gone to another room and when he came back, X was on the floor.

The mother was upset because the father knew that X could roll from his back to his side, and should have never left him alone unattended on the couch. She knew that the baby must have hit his head, falling like that. [ 75 ] She spoke about the times the father would lift the baby by his hands. She told him not to do that, that the baby's arms were not strong enough to hold his weight. The father said not to worry, it was like stretching, it could not harm the baby. She had to repeat it 2-3 times but the father kept doing this and the baby kept crying every time.

Eventually she told him that if he was going to pick the baby up like that, not to touch him, not to pick him up. He then started to hold him better. [ 76 ] She spoke about the incident around the child's membrane under his tongue (frenulum). She said she noticed that the baby was crying a lot, he went to sleep and woke up crying again and she saw there was some blood on his blanket. The day before, there had been a gathering at D 's (the father) with some of his relatives, and they had all held the baby. She denied having cut the membrane herself.

She took the baby to the Hospital and while she was there asked the nurse if it was normal that the baby's head was soft. The nurse told her that the baby was young and that it would settle with time. [ 77 ] At one point, she said she was not comfortable leaving X with D (the father) anymore. She told him, maybe it was too much, with his own 2 children and Z still a baby herself. [ 78 ] The day before the hospitalization, after A had gone to school, she took B and X to a park close to D 's. After a while they went to D 's. B was hungry, so she decided to fry him something but there was no oil.

She left to go buy some oil at the store nearby and was gone about 10 minutes. When she returned, X was crying. She asked D what happened, since she had just put X to sleep before she left, so why was he crying? D said B had jumped on the baby. She then went into the other room where B was watching TV and asked him if he had jumped on the baby. B denied. However, she wasn't sure whether B was lying or not, because the way she had asked him, he might have thought that he was in trouble if he said he had. [ 79 ] After she went home, she noticed that X 's arm was swollen.

She phoned a number (Info-Santé) and a nurse told her to put ice on his arm and if the swelling did not go down, to go to the hospital. The mother said she contacted the educator J , who told her to do

exactly what the nurse had said. [ 80 ] The mother said she phoned D (the father) and told him she had to take X to the hospital and asked him to bring them.

He refused and tried to dissuade her from going to the hospital, saying the swelling would go away, and saying you know what happened last time when you went to the hospital with B . [ 81 ] The mother admitted that she was scared of going to the hospital, that she was scared all the time that if something happened and she had to go to the hospital, it would be a repetition of the 1 st time with B (ie DYP, placement of children etc.) [ 82 ] D (the father) refused to take her and X to the hospital and did not want to be associated with this incident.

The mother knew that Youth Protection worker [Social Worker 2] was coming for a home visit the next day, so she decided to wait until then. When [Social Worker 2] arrived, the mother said she showed her X 's swollen arm, and they went to the hospital. [ 83 ] With respect to her explanation of X's injuries. The mother was asked why she said that the incident about B falling on the baby happened at her home. She answered that when she was told that X 's arm was broken, she honestly thought it could have been caused that way.

When she phoned D and told him about the baby having 18 fractures, it seemed to her that he was not that concerned. He went to the hospital that night and stayed only a few minutes, telling her to say that she had seen B on top of X . He didn't want her to say he had been there, nor that the child had been in his care. He said just tell them he was with you and this is what happened, because this is what happened. Just say he was with you when it happened. [ 84 ] So this is what she did. When Dr.

Sirard confronted her and told her it was not possible that the broken elbow could have happened that way, she was unable to speak. She was intimidated by his way of addressing her, he was speaking loudly in her face and she felt he was accusing her. So she did not say anything. [ 85 ] However, she said, she then started thinking that something else might have happened, intentionally or not, and that D was the only person there with X .

She said she asked him many times but he always denied. [ 86 ] She said she actually started thinking that D (the father) might have caused all the 18 fractures after an incident that happened after the 5 children had been placed. D was drunk and he told her that he was going to kill himself and the kids and he was going to take someone else with him. She told him then, please make sure it's not me or my kids. [ 87 ] With respect to the father being violent. Asked if the father had ever been violent towards her, the mother answered that he had only been physically violent towards her once.

It happened after the children were placed, sometime in 2013. The father came to her apartment and heard her, while she was on her doorstep, talking to her neighbour's brother and giving him her phone number. The father was upset because the neighbour's family went to K’s (the father's ex-wife) church and he was afraid that their situation would become known to the people from the church. [ 88 ] They got into an argument and the father grabbed her by the neck and choked her badly enough that she had bruises on her neck.

She did not call the police because she was scared. [ 89 ] It was the only time that he was physically violent towards her, although he was often verbally violent. [ 90 ] Asked if he was ever violent toward her children, the mother answered that she never saw him being violent towards them. There was one incident she was aware of, at Christmas 2011, when they were all at D 's. She was pregnant and resting in the bedroom and there was noise in the other room. Her mother came into the bedroom, very upset and cursing, saying D had kicked A hard on his behind.

She told D never to hit her children again. [ 91 ] She said that she did not like to leave A and B with him, because she had noticed that he did not treat her children the same way as his own. He did not like his children to socialize with hers, and when she came back she found that her children were sitting in one spot, whereas his children would be playing all over the place. [ 92 ] With respect to her children's attitude towards X. The mother explained that B at first was jealous of his baby brother because he felt that X was taking his place as the baby of the family.

However he soon warmed up to him and would go lie down with him in the playpen. The playpen was near the sofa, so he would climb on the sofa and slide into the playpen. He was never rough with the baby, never jumped on him or was ever aggressive towards him. As for A , he was really sweet to the baby. He would play puppets with him and dance and do funny things and X would laugh. He loved to make X laugh. [ 93 ] With respect to the trip to City A and B' broken elbow.

The mother explained that on this trip which happened early March 2012, they left on the Friday and came back the following Monday and stayed at D 's sister. B was very quiet and stayed next to her. He eventually warmed up and was running around the house a bit with the other children. He slept with her. D slept with his children in another room. It was only on the Sunday that B started complaining that his hand hurt. It was not swollen then.

The day after their return to City B , the mother took B to the hospital, by then it was very swollen. [ 94 ] She never understood the cause of the fractures and was never explained. However, her son A told her later, that D had one time pulled B by the hand really hard. He reminded her of a time, shortly before the trip to City A, that they were all together, and she had gone out to get something in the car. B had started crying because he wanted to go outside with her. A said that D had then pulled B really hard by the hand.

When she came back inside, A told her this and she confronted D who denied, but she noticed B was acting scared. [ 95 ] With respect to why she kept seeing the father after she suspected him for having caused the injuries to X. The mother said it was hard to explain. It was like D (the father) had a hold on her, that he was manipulating her. He kept coming to her place unexpectedly and she had to talk to him otherwise he would think she was talking to the DYP about him. He even hid recording devices in her apartment and she found them. He did not want her to give information about him to the DYP workers.

And he was telling her things that would scare her. Asked to be more specific, the mother answered that D would say that he knew somebody you can pay to

kill. He did not threaten her directly, but would say these things in the course of the conversation, and she felt scared. [ 96 ] She said she was scared even to come to Court to testify this day, and was sick the day before at the thought of it. But, she said, she was determined, and didn't care any more. [ 97 ] With respect to why she did not tell the Youth Protection workers. The mother answered that she did not feel comfortable with whom she was speaking to and they kept changing. She was not comfortable with the first DYP worker [social worker 2] .

In fact, D started thinking that maybe X was not his when he met [social worker 2] after X was born, because she had mentioned that X looked like B .

The mother did not think the worker had meant anything by saying this, but the father took it as an insinuation that the baby may not be his, although B looks a lot like her. [ 98 ] The mother said she started feeling more comfortable with educator J and opened up a bit, and was starting to feel comfortable with DYP delegate [Social Worker 3] , but then her case kept being transferred to a different DYP worker. [ 99 ] The mother had accepted to undergo a psychological parental capacity assessment when the case of B came to Court in June 2012.

In his report dated June 8 th , 2012, psychologist Peter Kelly writes: "Based on the results of the present parental capacity assessment as well as an extensive review or the case file, it is the opinion of this author that Ms. F presents as a competent mother for the most part to her two boys, B and A , but that she may have some personality issues and nonconformist attitudes that may interfere with her ability to always act responsibly and to be a good role model for her children. Although the Parent-Child Observation session demonstrated a good bond between Ms.

F and her two boys, the boys did not always respect their mother's authority. Ms. F appears to have a good understanding, however, of what qualities make for a good parent. This author was also impressed by Ms. F 's presentation in the individual interview as she came across as very open and cooperative to the assessment process. In addition, she appeared to be very motivated to do what is right concerning parenting. She had good eye contact throughout. Her presentation was clear, sharp, focused and she elaborated voluntarily on topics without the need for excessive prompting. Overall, Ms.

F came across as polite, non-manipulative and non-evasive with a positive attitude. However, this author has concerns that although Ms. F does not meet sufficient DSM-IV-TR criteria for any psychological diagnoses, there may be a pattern of irresponsible behaviours that pertain not only to her children's well-being, but also her own well-being. This is most disturbing with regards to the period of time it took before B received proper medical care for his 4 broken bones.

Even if the cause of the broken bones may be attributed to his older brother, A , who appears quite aggressive at times, there is no justification in this author's opinion, for the mother not making sure that B received the proper medical attention when he needed it. It is also quite disconcerting that Ms. F is rather vague on details and dates." [ 100 ] Psychologist Peter Kelly concludes his report with the following recommendations: "Based on the current assessment, it is strongly recommended that Ms.

F be required to follow Parental Courses in order to ensure that she is providing her children with a safe, loving, appropriate and responsible home environment. It is also strongly recommended that Ms. F follow Individual Psychothearapy with a male Psychotherapist who may be able to provide a corrective therapeutic relationship that is based upon a more stable and healthy male role model. This will also help to ensure that Ms. F can provide a healthy and positive relationship with her sons as well as the possibility that she may eventually enter into a more stable relationship with a man.

In addition, part of the time in Therapy should be devoted to the development of more prosocial and positive attitudes as well as the development of more mature and responsible behaviours." ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION [ 101 ] In reaching a decision of this nature, the Court must assess the evidence from a standard of preponderance of proof or balance of probabilities, which means in short, that the weight of the evidence tends to show that one thing is more probable than any another. [ 102 ] In this particular case, although it is not possible to know exactly what happened to baby X for him to have sustained 18 fractures at the age of 3 months, one thing that cannot be disputed, is that someone caused this to happen to him. [ 103 ] Dr.

Sirard was adamant in his testimony, these injuries to the child could not have been caused by another child (ie X 's siblings). They could only have been caused by the actions of an adult. He added, an adult out of control. [ 104 ] The only adults who had access to X were his mother, his father and his maternal grandmother. Although the Court did not elaborate on this topic in the description of the highlights of the evidence, it is noted in the documentary evidence and reported during the hearing, that the grandmother did not stay at the mother's home for very long and was not alone with the child.

The evidence shows that although she might have been unkind, she was never harmful to the child and cannot be considered as having caused him to sustain broken bones. [ 105 ] Which leaves the mother and the father. The father's testimony was contradicted on many issues. He denied any violence against his former wife. This was contradicted by his ex-wife's sister I as well as by the CLSC file on his ex-wife. He denied having been alone with the baby more than twice, which was disputed.

He denied being in a relationship with the mother of X , which was contradicted by the workers who saw them together, by the grandmother, and eventually by the mother herself. Essentially, the father tried to distance himself in every way from what happened to X . He wanted the case of X to be dealt with apart from that of his 2 other children. Throughout his testimony, as during the course of the evaluation of the signalement by the DYP, the father was evasive and not forthcoming. [ 106 ] The mother's testimony in Court was more enlightening as to what probably happened.

She answered questions clearly without trying to avoid them. She did not attempt to depict the father in an overly negative way. For instance, when asked if he drank, she

answered that she only saw him drink a few times, and drunk, once. Asked if he was physically violent towards her, she answered only once. If he was verbally violent, she said often but not regularly. Asked if D (the father) hit her children, she said she had never seen him do that and had told him not to, after the Christmas incident with A . [ 107 ] Her description of different incidents that she was aware had occurred to X , was quite informative in light of Dr. Sirard's testimony, which she had not heard since she was absent from Court that particular date (April 25, 2013).

In particular, when she described how the father picked the baby up by his hands and held him that way, saying it was like stretching him. That he did it more than once, even though she told him not to, and the baby cried every time. [ 108 ] Dr.

Sirard had testified that the fractures to the baby's arms could have resulted from an adult carrying him by the hands from one place to another. [ 109 ] She explained in a credible way, why she had not come forward before and why she was not always truthful with the DYP workers as to what was really happening. [ 110 ] The mother's behaviour was irresponsible, and certainly put X in harm's way. Letting her new-born out of her sight and entrusting him to a man whom she knew was already overwhelmed with his own children.

Not being attentive to the signals of harm (red eye, bleeding tongue, soft head, fall of the sofa) while at the same time being scared of a repetition of the same scenario she went through with B . Especially, considering she was with the same man as when B had his injuries. In doing so, the mother was not being protective of her child. [ 111 ] In fairness to the mother, she had just given birth, she had the care of her 2 elder children and though her mother was living with her for a while, she was not as helpful as she could have been and was often even aggravating the situation with her unkind remarks.

And indeed the mother said she asked D (the father) to look after the baby for a few hours so she could rest, being so very tired and depressed after the birth of X . [ 112 ] In addition, although the DYP was involved since the Court order of June 19, 2012, there was little support or respite provided to the mother and her children, due in part to the vacation period, to the unusual number of change of workers, but also to the mother's lack of openness about her situation. [ 113 ] However, in spite of the mother's lack of judgment, she is not, in the Court's appreciation, the author of X 's numerous fractures. [ 114 ] The evidence tends to show that the father would be responsible for at least some of X 's numerous fractures.

His way of picking up X by the baby's hands and holding him that way, certainly corresponds to Dr.Sirard's description of the fractures to X 's arms. The father saw no harm in doing so, saying it was just a form of stretching, even though the baby was crying. If he did this more than once in front of the mother even though she was telling him not to, it is quite probable he also handled the baby this way when he was alone with him. This way of handling the baby by the feet, would again explain some of the fractures to X 's legs, according to Dr.

Sirard. [ 115 ] The injury to the elbow and the lies surrounding this incident, explain the inexplicable, when told by the mother. She was repeating a story contrived by the father, that she thought could be true. B jumped/fell on X . She said the incident happened at her house while she was there, when it really happened at the father's while she was absent. Once she started repeating what he told her to say, she was trapped. X 's broken elbow was similar to B ' broken elbow in March 2012.

She felt blamed and her fears were made true: her children were placed. [ 116 ] The mother's answers to these questions in her testimony had the ring of truth. She was not accusatory nor was she self-serving. She answered the questions clearly and was never evasive.

But more important, her answers shed some light on the fate of baby X . [ 117 ] Her explanation of the father not wanting to be involved, not wanting to bring her to the hospital with the baby, or to go to the hospital once the fractures had been found, not wanting her to mention he was there when it happened, also rings true in light of the rest of the evidence. [ 118 ] The evidence shows that the father was going through a very stressful time, and that he was also burdened with many earlier traumas. His wife had recently died in tragic circumstances, and a coroner's inquest was underway.

He was estranged from his in-laws and felt accused and abandoned by them. He was left to raise his young children by himself, and was by all accounts not doing very well. [ 119 ] The evidence shows clearly that he was trying to distance himself in the eyes of others, from the mother ( C ), with whom he had been having an extramarital affair while his own wife was pregnant, which affair was still ongoing at the time of her death. [ 120 ] The evidence shows that he had the baby in his care more frequently than he admitted to. He also appeared to be lacking in basic child-care abilities.

Apart from his way of holding X by the hands, it is in evidence that his 2 other young children were not faring very well when they were placed in September 2012. They both appeared under nourished and their development was delayed. [ 121 ] The evidence also indicates that he was in the mother's (

C) life and around her children when B was found to have unexplained fractures to his arms, one very similar to that sustained by X . That he was reported to have pulled the child hard by the hand, on at least one occasion. [ 122 ] The evidence also shows that the father is a man who under emotional stress can become overwhelmed and lose touch with reality. The assessment report and testimony of psychologist Dembri, whom the father produced as his expert witness, although incomplete as it may be, conveys serious concerns with respect to the father's mental and emotional stability. X

[ 123 ] For all these reasons, the Court finds that, in accordance with

section 38 (e) (1) of the Youth Protection Act , X is the victim of bodily injury and that his parents failed to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation. [ 124 ] The Court further finds that the mother, although lacking in judgment to some extent toward her new-born, is not the author of the fractures sustained by the child. [ 125 ] The Court finds that the weight of the evidence shows that the father, willingly or not, caused some, if not all of the child's injuries. [ 126 ] The Court therefore declares that the security and development of X are endangered for these reasons.

Y and Z [ 127 ] Having come to this conclusion regarding X , the Court therefore finds that both Y and Z run a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury or being subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by their father, in accordance with

section 38 (e) (2). [ 128 ] The Court comes to this conclusion, even though neither children were found to have sustained physical injuries at the time of their placement. However, the severity and the number of injuries found on their brother, which occurred in the Court's estimation, in the hands of their father, amply justify this conclusion. [ 129 ] The Court therefore declares that the security and development of Y and Z are endangered for these reasons.

A and B [ 130 ] Both children's security and development have already been declared endangered within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act on June 19, 2012, in similar circumstances, in the same home environment, since the mother was at the time involved with D . The difference at the time was that the real nature and frequency of the relation between the mother and D was unknown to DYP and to the Court. However it was not unknown to the mother. [ 131 ] Psychologist Peter Kelly observed in his assessment of the mother's parental capacities at the time : "However, this author has concerns that although Ms.

F does not meet sufficient DSM-IV-TR criteria for any psychological diagnoses, there may be a pattern of irresponsible behaviours that pertain not only to her children's well-being, but also her own well-being." [ 132 ] The mother might not have known then how unstable D could be, but she did know that on at least one occasion, he had been violent towards A . And yet, her children were still exposed to the same environment. [ 133 ] The Court therefore finds that the security and development of A and B are endangered within the meaning of

section 38 (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act. APPLICABLE MEASURES [ 134 ] Having come to the conclusion that the security and development of all 5 children are endangered within the meaning of the Youth Protection Act, in accordance with

section 91, the Court must determine what are the measures best applicable in order to correct the situation of compromission. [ 135 ] In doing so, the Court takes into consideration the situation of each child individually. X [ 136 ] X was entrusted to the confidential foster home of Ms. L upon his being discharged from the hospital. It was to be a temporary home, however he recovered remarkably well in the care of Ms. L and was able to form a strong bond to her as well as her to him.

He has been maintained in her care and she has since been approved as a "mixed bank" foster home. [ 137 ] X is said to be developing well, seeking out his foster mother's attention, affection and recognition. He is said to be steadily walking, speaking up to 50 words and developmentally meeting his milestones. All his fractures are healed. His arm might need surgery later on, but the doctors report that he is growing very well and physiotherapy is no longer required. [ 138 ] The parents have not had any contact with their child since his placement.

It was felt that being in contact with either one of them, not knowing who had done what to him, could be traumatic to the child. They were not prohibited from contacting the foster mother for news of the child, and the mother has done so occasionally. [ 139 ] The orientation is for X to remain in the care of Ms. L . He has been in her care for over 20 months. Ms. L is more than willing to take care of X until his majority. [ 140 ] It is improbable that he will return to the care of either of his parents in any near future. It is therefore recommended that he be entrusted to the foster home of Ms.

L until his age of majority. [ 141 ] The Court finds this recommendation to be in compliance with

section 91.1 par. 3 of the Youth Protection Act, and in the best interest of X . A and B [ 142 ] A and B were both entrusted to a foster home at the time of the signalement in September 2012. Since then, while B has remained in his foster home, A was placed in a group home in October 2012 because his behaviour was difficult to manage.

[ 143 ] A has been receiving weekly psychological therapy since September 2013 and appreciates this service. Given his young age it is suggested that he would benefit from a foster home environment. In August 2013, the daughter of B ' foster mother expressed her interest in being assessed as a foster home for the 2 brothers. [ 144 ] In February 2014, however, it was determined that she did not pass successfully the entrustment assessment, and in the course of the evaluation, it was further determined that the foster home of B , would not be a suitable long term placement for B , were it to be the case.

Therefore, another foster home needed to be found for B . [ 145 ] In April 2014, Ms. L was approved as a mixed bank home for X . During the course of her assessment, she indicated that she was interested in fostering another child of the same racial background as X . This seemed a good opportunity for both children and she was also approved as a foster home for B . [ 146 ] A foster home for A is still being explored. [ 147 ] B had been undergoing a process of psychological developmental assessment at the City B Children Hospital for several months.

In mid-March 2014, it became known that his performance places his abilities in an extremely low range in various areas of cognitive functioning and a diagnosis of Early Developmental Impairment was determined. This means that his needs would be better suited by receiving services from CR[A] and a referral is to be made. [ 148 ] While both children see each other regularly and enjoy each other's company, they have not seen their mother since March 2013.

The mother has criminal charges against her with respect to X 's injuries, and a prohibition of contacts with her children was ordered by the Criminal Court. [ 149 ] It is reported that the children deeply miss their mother and ask for her. Following receiving this information in evidence, on October 9 th 2012 this Court recommended the DYP to assist the mother in obtaining a modification of the prohibition, so that her children could have supervised visits with her.

On February 5 th , 2014 the Court reiterated this measure and ordered the DYP to assist the mother in doing so, in the interest of the children. [ 150 ] However, in spite of the DYP's assistance in this matter, the mother has missed appointments and Court hearings, and to this date, the children have still not seen their mother. The Court, once again, exhorts the mother to do what is necessary to correct this situation. [ 151 ] In addition, the mother is said to be registered since March 2013 at the A Institute for individual therapy, as per the recommendations of psychologist Peter Kelly in June 2012.

She is said to be on a waiting list and has not yet begun to receive these services. Again, the Court urges the mother to follow-up on this matter. Y and Z [ 152 ] As mentioned above, both Y and Z have been entrusted to the care of their maternal aunt Ms. I , since February 1 st , 2013. The children are said to be doing well in the home environment of their aunt. [ 153 ] The father has weekly visits with his 2 children which are supervised by a Family Preservation educator who has been working with the family since December 2012.

The educator's role was to help the father work on enhancing his parental capacities in particular how to interact with the children appropriately and set boundaries. It is reported that the visits go well and that the children are happy to see their father. [ 154 ] In her Addendum III, dated May 22 nd , 2014, Youth Protection worker [Social Worker 4] summarizes the situation of the children and family as follows: " Y and Z are doing well in the home of Ms. I . Z has gained more weight and is eating well.

Y is more verbal and happier as he is able to better express himself with words; the children's medical appointments are up-to-date. Y and Z are comfortable with Ms. I and call her "mama" which is said to be common in their culture. The home is appropriate and the children show ease in their new environment and with all the family members. Ms. I shows much affection towards the children and is able and committed to caring for them as long as needed. There are a few issues with the extended family (grandparents) which need further exploration. Mr.

D has made progress in his parental capacity which is observed during his weekly visits with his children and the children seem to enjoy spending time with him, however, given that the criminal court charges are still pending and Mr.

D is unable to assume responsibility of taking care of his children, it is this worker's opinion that the security and development of Z and Y are still compromised and DYP involvement is required." [ 155 ] The Court finds these recommendations as being in the interest of the children. [ 156 ] Furthermore, the Court was quite concerned with the findings of psychologist Dembri, and urges the father to complete the assessment and to follow her recommendations. [ 157 ] Serious consideration should be given to the father's collaboration on this matter before allowing unsupervised visits with his children.

CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 158 ] GRANTS the motions for all 5 children; [ 159 ] IN THE CASE OF X; [ 160 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child is endangered within the meaning of

section 38 (e) (1) of the Youth

Protection Act ; IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 161 ] TAKES ACT that the child has been placed in a foster home for a period of over 20 months and that a return to his parents is not probable on a short or a long term basis and that the child does not know his parents; [ 162 ] TAKES ACT that the child is doing well in the foster home of Ms. L and that the orientation of the DYP is that he remain entrusted to this foster home [ 163 ] ORDERS that X remain entrusted to the foster home of Ms.

L and that the address of this home remain confidential; [ 164 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health services required by his situation; [ 165 ] WITHDRAWS from the parents certain attributes of the parental authority, namely that to give and sign all consents pertaining to the child’s needs for the purposes of educational, medical, therapeutic, social activities and traveling purposes, including obtaining a passport; and ENTRUSTS the exercise of these attributes to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 166 ] PROHIBITS contacts between X and his parents as well as between X and his maternal grandmother; [ 167 ] ORDERS that the mother's address and coordinates be confidential to the father, Mr.

D ; [ 168 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in the psychological assessment completed by psychologist Peter Kelly in June 2012 and that she engage in Individual therapy; [ 169 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father follow the preliminary recommendations completed by Ms.

Nora Dembri dated April 22 nd , 2013; [ 170 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo individual therapy; [ 171 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family; [ 172 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share necessary and relevant information with all the service providers working with the family including Correction Canada; [ 173 ] THE WHOLE until the child's age of majority ( [...] , 2030); [ 174 ] IN THE CASE OF A AND B ; [ 175 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children continue to be endangered within the meaning of

section 38 (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 176 ] In the case of A : [ 177 ] ORDERS that A remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center for a maximum period of 6 months with a plan of integration into a foster home as soon as the situation allows; [ 178 ] TAKES ACT that a foster home has been identified for A and that the integration should start shortly; [ 179 ] In view of this specific situation regarding A: [ 180 ] SUSPENDS contacts between A and his mother for strictly the time necessary to facilitate the integration of A into this foster home; [ 181 ] ENCOURAGES contacts between the mother and the child, were this integration not to happen or once it’s completed and ORDERS the DYP to assist the mother in having the prohibition of contacts lifted in the Criminal Court; [ 182 ] ORDERS , were contacts to resume between A and his mother, that the frequency and modality of these contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection following consultation with the professionals involved and namely Dr.

Judy Voigt; [ 183 ] PROHIBITS contacts between A and Mr.

D [ 184 ] ORDERS that the contacts between A and B be maintained and encouraged; [ 185 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all consents pertaining to the child’s needs for the purposes of educational, medical, therapeutic, social activities and traveling purposes, including obtaining a passport, were the mother unavailable to give such consents and ORDERS that the mother be notified of any and all such consents given by the DYP; [ 186 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health and psychological services required by his situation; [ 187 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share necessary and relevant information with all the service providers working with the family including Correction Canada; [ 188 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in the psychological assessment completed

by psychologist Peter Kelly in June 2012 and engage in Individual therapy; [ 189 ] ORDERS that the mother's address and coordinates remain confidential to Mr. D ; [ 190 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family; [ 191 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one (1) year; [ 192 ] In the case of B: [ 193 ] ORDERS that B be entrusted to a foster home for a period of 1 year and TAKES NOTE that he is to be integrated into the home of Ms. L and ORDERS that this address remain confidential; [ 194 ] PROHIBITS contacts between B and Mr.

D ; [ 195 ] SUSPENDS contacts between B and his mother during his integration into the foster home for strictly the time necessary to facilitate the integration of B into this foster home; [ 196 ] ENCOURAGES contacts between the mother and the child, were this integration not to happen or once it’s completed and ORDERS the DYP to assist the mother in having the prohibition of contacts lifted in Criminal Court; [ 197 ] ORDERS , were contacts to resume between B and his mother, that the frequency and modality of these contacts be determined by the Director of Youth Protection following consultation with the professionals involved; [ 198 ] ORDERS that the contacts between A and B be maintained and encouraged; [ 199 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign all consents pertaining to the child’s needs for the purposes of educational, medical, therapeutic, social activities and traveling purposes, including obtaining a passport, were the mother unavailable to give such consents and ORDERS that the mother be notified.of any and all such consents given by the DYP; [ 200 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health and psychological services required by his situation; [ 201 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share necessary and relevant information with all the service providers working with the family including Correction Canada; [ 202 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations made in the psychological assessment completed by psychologist Peter Kelly in June 2012 and engage in Individual therapy; [ 203 ] ORDERS that the mother's address and coordinates remain confidential to Mr.

D ; [ 204 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family; [ 205 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one (1) year; [ 206 ] IN THE CASE OF Y AND Z ; [ 207 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are endangered within the meaning of

section 38 (e) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 208 ] ORDERS that both children remain entrusted to the care of their maternal aunt Ms.

I ; [ 209 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father remain determined by the Director of Youth Protection (as of frequency and modality) with supervision for as long as deemed necessary which supervision could be done by a third party approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 210 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their maternal grandparents be determined by the DYP until an assessment of their situation is completed; [ 211 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father follow the preliminary recommendations completed by Ms.

Nora Dembri dated April 22 nd , 2013; [ 212 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo individual therapy; [ 213 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to obtain and share necessary and relevant information with all the service providers working with the family including Correction Canada; [ 214 ] ORDERS that the children receive all health and educational services required by their situation; [ 215 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family; [ 216 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one (1) year; [ 217 ] IN THE CASE OF ALL 5 CHILDREN: [ 218 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of all 5 children to the Director of Youth Protection A , who shall see that these measures are carried

out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer if necessary; SIGNED AT CITY B __________________________________ MICHÈLE LEFEBVRE, J.C.Q. M e Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant M e Michèle Gauthier Attorney for the 5 children M e Daniel Bouchard Attorney for the mother of X , B and A M e Guy-Luc Grondin Attorney for the father of X , Y and Z Judgment rendered orally on May 27 th , 2014. ML/mlm [i] List of documents filed to serve as evidence in attachment (page 1)