2021 QCCQ 3701, 2021 QCCQ 3701

Protection de la jeunesse — 211834 2021 QCCQ 3701 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 140-41-000651-206 DATE: February 4, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2008 Child and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child is in danger according to

section 38b)1)i), 38c) and 38f) of the Youth protection Act , notably because of neglect to provide the child’s basic needs, a situation of psychological ill treatment and serious behaviour disturbance. [ 2 ] The mother does not contest the situation of endangerment, but rather the placement measure. In addition, if her son is placed, she contests that the contacts be supervised. The child shares the mother’s position. context [ 3 ] In May 2020, the DYP got involved in the family’s situation due to some concerns such as the poor condition of the house and fights occurring between mother and son.

Following the evaluation carried out, several issues are raised regarding the maternal environment such as the cleanliness of the house, inappropriate reactions from the mother towards the child, her inability to ensure his school attendance and her mental health problems. The family is referred to the CLSC for services. [ 4 ] In December 2020, another event arises. The child has a severe asthma attack, which already occurs twice this past year. The mother does not provide him his inhaler, and she has no transportation to bring him to the hospital. Furthermore, the child’s attendance in school is problematic.

At that time, an agreement on voluntary measure [1] was signed between the parties. In that document, the mother agrees to fully cooperate, accepts help and guidance for her parental responsibility. analysis [ 5 ] The mother and the child are Anglophones. They do not have a social network, and they are isolated because they live in a French-speaking area. The mother’s environment is far from adequate. In addition, she has many animals in the house, which does not help to keep the place clean. Now, she does possess a car. However, it does not seem clear, if it belongs to her.

The mother is unemployed and she is in a precarious financial situation. Sometimes, the DYP helps her financially such as paying for gas. [ 6 ] The mother and the child have a fusional relationship. So it’s hard for the mother to put boundaries. Their relationship is affectionate, but its structure is seriously deformed by her permissiveness, which unfortunately impairs the life of the child who is on a

trajectory marked by over consumption and addiction to video games [2] . The child could spend 10 to 9 hours per day playing video games. Over the months, the mother was unable to reduce drastically his screen time. [ 7 ] The mother’s collaboration is problematic. The youth delegate tries to make surprise visits, but either the mother is not present, or she refuses to let her in. She is very aggressive towards the latter and raises her voice while speaking with her, even in the presence of the child. She must be instructed to stop doing it.

Her attitude is difficult to understand, being a social worker herself, according to her testimony. [ 8 ] It is hard to work with the mother because she does not recognize her problems nor does she take any responsibilities in the current situation, rather putting the burden on the shoulders of her son. For example, she expresses that when he will be back home, her son will go to school because, he has learned his lesson . She puts all the responsibility on him, despite the fact that he is still a child, and that she is the adult. [ 9 ] The mother is negligent regarding the child’s health.

He does not have his medication because she fails to renew it. She does not follow the doctor’s recommendations to reduce the child’s screen time. To justify the non-application of this request, she invokes the incompetence of this professional. The child previously would spend most of his time in front of a screen, playing games. [ 10 ] The mother suffers from a dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder with elements of anxiety and depression. A group B personality disorder is also suspected. Her psychological follow-up was terminated at the end of the summer.

A reference in psychotherapy is made for the mother. She is on the waiting list for services. However, she refuses a follow-up with a social worker. The mother considers that her mental state is improving but cannot say with certainty. [ 11 ] The mother does not collaborate with the DYP, except when she needs them for financial support or transport. Furthermore, she does not understand the reasons for their involvement in her family. She is unable to supervise her son and cannot put in place clear rules, which led the child to play video games excessively. She is not able as well to ensure that he attends school.

She exposes the child to problems, which should only concern adults. Therefore, the latter always tries to protect her. [ 12 ] Since the placement of her son, the mother has mobilized more. She shows up for meetings and further maintains her residence. She answers the DYP’s calls and emails. This behaviour is totally different from the one observed following the signing of the agreement on voluntary measures.

Before considering the return of the child in her environment, the mother must be transparent, carry out follow-ups, in particular, on mental health issues. [ 13 ] When he lived with the mother, the child was not attending school almost half of the time. During confinement, he does not participate in any virtual classes and did not return afterwards. He played video games excessively and spends a lot of his mother’s money for gaming.

This situation is questionable, considering the precarious financial situation of the family. [ 14 ] The child has asthma, and he uses his pumps inadequately during panic attacks, and the mother cannot manage or control the way he uses his medication. [ 15 ] Since the child was entrusted to a foster family, his progress is impressive. He does not intensively play video games. He respects the rules, and he does not complain. Several fears or anxious moments have faded such as taking the bus. He shows signs of anxiety when he visits his mother.

He no longer has free access to his medication and takes it under the supervision of an adult. He goes to school since the beginning of the school year. He attends his class and his behaviour is irreproachable. There have been no issues with his daily commute by bus between his residence and school. [ 16 ] The child still vulnerable because of his separation anxiety and generalized anxiety exacerbated by his learning difficulties and undiagnosed ADHD. He faces many challenges even with his health because of his asthma attacks. He cares a lot about the mother and worries about her constantly.

He acts more like an adult than his mother. He still worries for her, even if he is in foster care. decision [ 17 ] After the voluntary measure signed in May 2020 until this day, the situation has not improved positively, and little work has been done by the mother. The DYP deals more with crisis situations than working on existing issues. The mother’s situation is worrying, in particular, because of her mental health, because she herself does not know when she is dissociating. She even claims that she has two personalities. She is unable to supervise her son and to put clear rules in place.

She cannot answer her son needs concerning health care. She needs to receive services from the mental health teams in order to stabilize her situation and help her deal with her issues. These problems have notable impacts on her son. [ 18 ] Although she signs and commits to abide to the measures agreed on the voluntary measures, she does not get involved so much. Obviously, in light of the evidence, she does not take this commitment seriously and instead adopts an opposing and disrespectful stance towards professionals.

It has to be said that since then the situation has only deteriorated. [ 19 ] Since this case was brought to court, the mother collaborates and mobilizes more. This change of attitude towards services is quite recent. The Court doubts that this will persist over time, considering she has already made commitments that she has not met. She points out, for example, her intention to remove the video console from her son’s room, but later during her testimony, she changes her version and says that she will do it if necessary, claiming that it is a gift and cannot take it away from him.

Again, she is the adult and must take decisions in the best interests of the child regardless of the various considerations. [ 20 ] The mother’s mobilization is still recent; we cannot foresee an immediate return without ensuring that the situation has really changed and is stable over time. It is necessary to ensure that the mother will keep her promises and will collaborate from this day forwards. During the past year, it was not the case.

In addition, the mother must begin her follow-up in order to receive help and reduce the impact of her diagnoses, which are currently having repercussions on the child, despite all her good will. [ 21 ] Currently, the child is making good progress and several problems observed in the past have disappeared. Over the next few

months, we will have to make sure that the mother is serious about getting involved, because since May 2020, she obviously has done, practically nothing. She had many chances, but she did not seize the opportunity to work on her issue. [ 22 ] However, since the mother shows a desire for change, although recent, the fact remains that the mother really wants to take her son back, and she realizes the consequences of her lack of involvement in resolving the problems raised. She must now prove herself and make the necessary efforts to put an end to the situation of endangerment or at least work hard achieving it.

Since she demonstrates an opening to change, and it starts to show slowly, the placement period should be reduced. In addition, she always took care of the child without anyone’s help.

Furthermore, the visits with the mother are going well. [ 23 ] Although the mother-child visits are going well, the supervision if necessary, should remain considering the evidence presented, in particular, regarding her mental health issues, her lack of collaboration with all the services in the recent past and the seriousness of the child’s problematic. [ 24 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are in danger. Considering the evidence adduces, the application is well founded.

Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP appear to be in the child’s best interest, except regarding the length of the placement.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to sections 38b)1)i), 38c) and 38f) of the Youth protection act ; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP, until July 31 st , 2021; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be determined according to agreement between the parties and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child receives specific health care and health services, especially a child psychiatric evaluation and follow-up; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES that the professionals involved with the child exchange relevant information; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a psychiatric assessment; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to submit herself to a psychological assessment; [ 33 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother involves herself into psychological counselling regarding her personal difficulties, including a follow-up with a worker from the mental health team; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the mother actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 35 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until November 30, 2021; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parties concerned by this judgment comply with it. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Myriam Dufresne for the applicant Me Mylène Murray for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the mother Date of hearing: December 8, 2020