2019 QCCQ 9280, 2019 QCCQ 9280

Protection de la jeunesse — 19332 2019 QCCQ 9280 JG2072 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] «Youth Division»

N° : 755-41-002740-176 DATE : January 25 th , 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONOURABLE MARIO GERVAIS J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [Social Worker 1] , youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2008 Child-respondent -and- A Mother-respondent -and- B (deceased) Father-respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sections 95 (1) & (2) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) presents an application for revision and extension of a Court order in the matter of the child X , born on [...], 2008. [ 2 ] The Director recommends an extension of the child’s placement in a foster home for a period of six months and restricted contacts between the mother and the child. [ 3 ] The mother disputes the application, being of the opinion that she is able to assume the care of her child or, if not according to the Court, in a very near future. [ 4 ] The child’s lawyer informs the Court that the child agrees with the extension of her placement.

The child does not want to be obliged to visit her mother. At the moment, she is refusing all contacts with her mother. The context [ 5 ] The original Court order, rendered on March 13 th , 2017, declares that the security and development of the child are in danger for reason of parental neglect, the mother failing to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support.

[ 6 ] At that date, the child remains in the care of her mother with the social follow-up of the Director, taking in consideration the mother’s undertaking to seek medical help for her borderline personality disorder and to cooperate with the Director. [ 7 ] On September 19 th , 2017 , the Court reviews its judgement because the mother’s personal situation has deteriorated to such an extent that not only the original motive of intervention remains, but new reasons that compromise the security and development of the child have appeared, more particularly: ➢ The mother does not meet the child’s physical basic needs; ➢ The child is subjected to psychological ill-treatment from the mother; [ 8 ] The child is entrusted to a foster family until June 30 th , 2018.

In fact, emergency measures and a provisional judgement already provided such a placement since June 22 nd , 2017. [ 9 ] In its September 19 th , 2017’ judgement, the Court writes: [15] The mother is overwhelmed by her personal difficulties. The child has become the object of her exasperation. The mother blames the child for her struggle. She denigrates the child, resorting to contemptuous epithet. [16] The mother has mental health issues. She has a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. She does not comply with all requirements of her doctor.

When her condition gets unstable, the mother becomes erratic, unpredictable, rude and aggressive. [18] On June 22nd, 2017, the child is examined by her regular doctor in the presence of the mother. In a letter sent to the Director the next day, the doctor expresses major concerns for the child emotional safety: Il est clair pour moi que le rejet affectif de la mère envers l’enfant, ses cris, sa façon rude de lui parler, son manque d’empathie et ses reproches constants constituent de la violence psychologique grave, d’autant plus que la situation est chronique.

Les comportements de l’enfant qui vont en se détériorant sont la preuve de l’impact significatif de cette violence, impact qui aura inéluctablement des répercussions à long terme sur l’enfant. [ 10 ] The Court also insisted that the mother receive health services to address her mental health problem and that she cooperate with the Director to improve her parental skills. Evolution of the situation and Analysis [ 11 ] The evidence reveals that the child live in a new foster home since February 1 st , 2018.

The child’s transfer was needed because of her conflictual relationship with another child within the same foster home. [ 12 ] The child has adapted to her new living environment. She is well taken care of and her fundamental needs are properly addressed. The foster home resort to special strategies since the child has attachment issues. [ 13 ] The child is evolving positively. Her behavior is improving in the foster home and at school where she is enrolled in a special class and benefits from a psychoeducational follow-up.

She has a better self-esteem. [ 14 ] The child receives speech therapy from a clinic in City A. However, she still encounters language difficulties. [ 15 ] On April 17 th , 2018, the child went through a psychological evaluation from Santé mentale jeunesse.

The diagnoses made are: ➢ Trouble relationnel parent-enfant sur historique de perturbations familiales et de pratiques éducatives inadéquates avec enjeux d’attachement insécurisant, tantôt évitant, tantôt désorganisé; ➢ Trouble d’apprentissage. [ 16 ] Clearly, the evaluation highlights the effects of the child’s life experience since her early childhood . [ 17 ] As for the mother, her situation remains mostly the same : ➢ The mother struggles financially; ➢ The mother has been homeless for many months; ➢ The mother is hostile to the Director’s intervention.

She doesn’t want neither clinical meetings with the Director nor phone communication. She considers that she has no issues to address. She refuses to disclose her address, even when ordered to do so by the Court. The mother has recently disclosed her address, but the accuracy of the information seems doubtful; ➢ The mother has no psychiatric follow-up and at this point doesn’t have a health insurance card from the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. The mother doesn’t plan to get her card in a near future. [ 18 ] The mother exercises regularly her access rights to her child.

Visitations take place in the presence of the Director and a security agent. The latter’s presence was deem necessary for the following reasons: ➢ In 2017, the mother once showed up for a supervised contact with her child in possession of a knife; ➢ The mother has pending criminal accusations against staff members of the Director;

➢ The mother is aggressive in presence of the social worker; ➢ The social worker fears the mother; ➢ The child fears her mother, saying that she is afraid that her mother will get angry and hit her. [ 19 ] The Director notes that during visitations, the mother talks to the child as to an adult. She fails decoding her child’s needs. [ 20 ] The mother pays little attention to the child’s source of interest.

For instance, the mother would like the contacts to proceed on Friday, even though she doesn’t have a job and her child has extra-curricular activities after school on Friday. [ 21 ] The maternal grand-mother is usually present during these contacts. At time, she is subjected to the mother’s aggressiveness or intimidation. [ 22 ] The contacts between the mother and the child can be of negative impact for the child. She can have nightmares and cry following a visit. [ 23 ] The last contact between the mother and the child occurred on November 22 nd , 2018.

The child went into an intense crisis when she noticed that her grand-mother brought a sandwich with a kind of bread that she doesn’t like. [ 24 ] The child mentioned to the social worker afterwards that her mother and grand-mother never take into consideration her opinion. [ 25 ] Since then, the child refuses all contacts with her mother.

The fact that the mother had nothing to do with the grand-mother’s choice of sandwich doesn’t change her mind. [ 26 ] Whatever the misunderstanding, this incident is a symptom of how deteriorated the relationship between the mother and the child has become. [ 27 ] At this stage of the child's life and given the family situation as revealed by the evidence, a major shift on the part of the mother is essential and mobilization through proactive actions are urgent, namely: ➢ Getting psychiatric/psychological health services to treat her mental health condition that has a direct impact on her ability to adequately respond to her child’s needs. ➢ Involvement in the Director's intervention plan and full cooperation for the development of her parenting skills and the reestablishment of a positive relationship with her child. [ 28 ] In this regard, significant progress must be accomplished before considering family reintegration. [ 29 ] In the meantime, the child must remain in her foster home, surrounded by adults who are caring and providing a safe, secure and predictable environment. [ 30 ] As for the contacts between the mother and the child, the Court considers that the child’s whishes must be respected. [ 31 ] Also, the child must be made aware of the active steps that will be taken by the mother to resolves her personal issues.

Such active steps will help the mother to appease the child’s fears and to regain her trust which will favor restoring their relationship and resuming their contacts . The Director will then be in a position to reassure the child and encourage her to visit her mother under the Director’s supervision.

The Court would even then consider to obligate the child to visit her mother if needed to tear down a barrier a give the opportunity to the child to see for herself the progress made by her mother. [ 32 ] The Court appeals to the mother and chooses to trust her ability to take back control of her life and her parental duty.

In that context, the mother will retain the exercise of all her parental attributes to still assume an important role in her child’s life. [ 33 ] Finally, the Court deems necessary to state that according to the law and considering first and foremost the best interest of the child, X cannot be indefinitely waiting for a recovery from her mother and hoping for a familial reintegration. Whether it will be an option in a near future, whether an alternative permanent life plan will have to be concretized.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS the application; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 36 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on September 19 th , 2017; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be upon agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, according to the need and desire of the child; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the mother report to the Director at least once every two weeks to inform her of her situation, including any change of address or phone numbers;

[ 41 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek and obtain psychiatric/psychological health services; [ 42 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the measures ordered; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of six months. ________________________________ Mario Gervais, J.C.Q. M e Bianca Monette Attorney for the Director M e Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the child M e Alexandre Niquette Attorney for the mother