2019 QCCQ 15293, 2019 QCCQ 15293

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910633 2019 QCCQ 15293 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-031906-167 DATE: December 16, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2012 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on December 16, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on August 9, 2018. [ 3 ] On January 14, 2019, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in a foster family until the main hearing. [ 4 ] On February 22, 2019, the Director asked for the hearing to be postponed as a longer duration was needed. [ 5 ] On March 27, 2019, the Tribunal ordered on a provisional basis, that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director.

The Tribunal ordered a minimum of one contact per week under the direct supervision of the Youth Protection worker.

The Tribunal ordered that the frequency of the contacts be augmented to twice a week if the mother respects the imposed conditions for at least a month. [ 6 ] On August 6 and 7, 2019, the Tribunal heard the testimonies of B, foster mother, Catherine Langlois-Cloutier, psychologist, Matthew Danbrook, psychologist, C from the [Clinic A], [Social Worker 1], educator, [Social Worker 2], Youth Protection worker, [Social Worker 3], [Organism A] worker coordinator and the mother. [ 7 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain placed in a foster family and that support measures be ordered until his age of majority. [ 8 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the mother was proposing that the Tribunal authorizes the child’s progressive reintegration to her care.

On December 16, 2019, the mother agreed with the child’s placement until his majority. She asked that the Tribunal orders a minimum of two contacts per week between herself and the child. [ 9 ] On December 16, 2019, the child’s attorney asked that the Tribunal orders a minimum frequency of one contact per week between her client and the mother. Questions in litigation [ 10 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights?

[ 11 ] Should the Tribunal orders a minimum frequency in terms of contacts between the mother and the child? [ 12 ] If so, what should be that minimum frequency? Context and Analysis [ 13 ] The child has continued to thrive in the foster family of Mrs. B and Mr. D. [ 14 ] The mother has only recently engaged in a therapeutic process at the [Clinic A]. During her testimony, Ms. C mentioned that the mother had done 8 out of 10 sessions.

She reported communicating with the mother on a regular basis by phone or text. [ 15 ] The mother has a difficult time hearing and accepting feedback from the Youth Protection worker and the educator. During her testimony, the educator and the Youth Protection worker mentioned that the mother had a difficult time supervising both children at the same time and keeping them engaged for the duration of the visit. She was able to focus on one child at a time. [ 16 ] The mother was not always transparent with the Director regarding her personal situation.

The Youth Protection worker learned about the mother’s medical prescription for marijuana while reading the parental capacity assessment. [ 17 ] During her social follow-up meetings, the mother shared with the Youth Protection worker that she believed that she had an undiagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder. The worker spoke about treatment options with the mother and recommended that she receive a formal diagnosis.

The mother did not take any steps to obtain such a confirmation regarding her mental health. [ 18 ] The mother reported that she continued to attend treatment at [Centre A] and that she remained sober to this date. When this was verified by Mr. Matthew Danbrook, psychologist, it was reported that she attended approximately half of the proposed sessions. She did not attend a requested random drug testing due to the Jewish Holidays, nor did she go to the requested testing in April and May 2019. Results from the tests on February 11, March 5, June 5 and July 4, 2019 came back positive for marijuana.

The mother still denies consuming any drugs to the Youth Protection worker. [ 19 ] The mother has continued to build her business of cleaning homes in the community. [ 20 ] Until March 26, 2019, the visits between the child and the mother occurred twice per week. The mother also called the child twice per week. [ 21 ] During some visits, the mother lacked sensitivity, sharing with the child about fun activity she does with his sister and making promises. [ 22 ] On November 8, 2018, the children had to appear in Court for a criminal hearing.

The mother was informed of this and that it would be important to be there to support her children. The mother did not show up in Court. [ 23 ] X was registered at [School A] and began kindergarten on August 30, 2018. He is doing generally well, although he exhibits difficult behaviours in school the afternoon following a visit with his mother. [ 24 ] Following a visit with his mother at [Organism A] on March 10, 2019, the child mentioned that he would be living with his mother as of August 2019.

He reported that he did not want to have to decide where he would be living. [ 25 ] During the week of March 10, 2019, the child was physically aggressive and exposed his penis to his foster mother and to his brother. [ 26 ] Following the March 17, 2019 visit with his mother, the child self-mutilated himself on his right arm. [ 27 ] On March 18, 2019, the child and his brother reported to the Youth Protection worker that their mother told them that as of August 2019, they would be living with her.

They appeared confused. [ 28 ] The child began a therapeutic process at [Clinic B]. [ 29 ] Following the March 26, 2019 hearing, supervised visits between the child and the mother have been organized once per week. [ 30 ] From November 2018 to February 2019, an updated assessment was done in regards of the mother’s parental capacity. The expert saw the mother during eight meetings. The mother remained resistant and on the defensive throughout the sessions.

During this evaluation, the mother still questioned if the children were ever sexually abused by their brother, saying “ I wasn’t there ” and “ no one explained word for word what happened ”. The expert considers that the mother is still, on some level, in denial. She externalized the cause for the Director’s involvement and was unable to recognize her own responsibility in the matter. This could jeopardize her ability to provide the child with support. [ 31 ] In the August 9, 2018 judgment, the Tribunal understood that the mother had accepted the fact that her children had been sexually abused.

The Tribunal wrote the following: [22] The mother has only recently been able to acknowledge that the child and his brother have been sexually abused by their brother Y. Up until July 23, 2018, she believed that the child and his brother were influenced and brainwashed by the youth protection worker while reporting the incidents. Consequently, she was not able to accompany them in their recovery and visits’ supervision remain necessary. [ 32 ] During her testimony, the mother mentioned that it is only in spring 2019 that she accepted that “ something happened ” and that the children had been sexually abused.

The Tribunal is not convinced that the mother really recognizes the severity of the situation and the children’s needs in this regard.

[ 33 ] The mother presents as if her addictions had “minimal impact” on the life of her family. At the beginning of the evaluation process of her parental capacity, she mentioned to the expert that she had stopped using marijuana 3 to 4 months ago. During the assessment process, she presented a medical prescription for marijuana. For the expert, the mother’s marijuana use remains a concern as it led in the past, to her use of cocaine and to her gambling issues. It impaired her judgment and was part of the chain of addiction.

When these concerns were discussed with the mother, she became defensive and externalized the blame. The expert is of the opinion that the mother is still unable to recognize concrete triggers. [ 34 ] She still lacks an understanding of the child’s trauma to support him in his recovery. The expert concludes stating the following [1] : […] (the mother’

s) capacity to promote a healthy development in her children is limited given that she does not accept responsibility for her own behaviour. She is centered on her own needs of wanting to be a mother, and there is minimal insight regarding how her own behaviour and addiction issues have impacted her children. She often externalizes the blame to other people (e.g., the worker or her ex- husband). When (the mother) is confronted about aspects of her history, she becomes defensive and presents information in a favorable light.

This defensive profile alone with her need to preserve a positive self-image indicates that she lacks insight that will allow her to change her situation. [ 35 ] This evaluation confirms certain elements that were already reported in the Parenting Capacity Assessment done in 2015 [2] . [ 36 ] During her testimony, the mother reported that she recognized her triggers and that she was prescribed marijuana to control her anxiety.

Even when confronted with the date mentioned on her prescription (February 11, 2019), she mentioned that she received this prescription in April 2019. [ 37 ] On August 27, 2019, the mother informed the Youth Protection worker that she would no longer collaborate with her. On September 16, 2019, the mother informed Mr. [Social Worker 4], collaborating worker, that she would not present herself to the attachment assessment. [ 38 ] In the event that the child was returned to her care, she was planning on moving out of her boyfriend’s apartment and finding her own place.

She mentioned that her boyfriend would pay for half of her rent. The mother recently reported that her relationship with her long-term partner had ended. In the past, she could count on his support, including for the financial aspects of her life. She now recognizes that he was a controlling man. On August 7, 2019, at Court, he made verbal threats to her. [ 39 ] When asked during her testimony to list her priorities, the mother reported the following: stability, health, success and beauty. She mentioned that she has done the best she can and that she should get more time with her children.

She did not see the need for the visits to be supervised. She wanted to take her children for the Sabbath dinner and she was frustrated that she could not bring them to the Synagogue. [ 40 ] The mother has not been able to present a realistic plan to have her child returned to her care. On December 16, 2019, the mother finally agreed for the child to be placed in a foster family until his age of majority. The child has been living outside of his mother’s care since June 2016. He is well integrated within the foster family of Ms. B and Mr. D.

The Youth Protection Act ’s maximum duration of placement has been reached. The foster parents are willing and able to care for him until his age of majority. [ 41 ] As for the contacts between the child and the mother, it would be detrimental for the child to fix in time set contacts from now until his age of majority. With time, the frequency and modalities of contacts will surely change to adapt to the child’s different needs and wishes. The Tribunal will let the parties determine, upon agreement, the

schedule of contacts between the child and the mother. This will permit the necessary flexibility. In the event parties were not able to agree, the Tribunal will set a minimum. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 42 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension; [ 43 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 44 ] REVISE and EXTENDS the order rendered on August 9, 2018; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a foster family; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the chosen foster family be the one of Ms. B and Mr.

D; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the frequency of contacts between the child and his mother be determined upon agreement of the parties; in the event the parties do not agree, ORDERS a minimum frequency of one visit per week; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the modalities of contacts, including supervision if needed, between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 49 ] ORDERS that the child not come into contact with Mr.

E and the child’s brother, Y; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the child complete an ADHD evaluation and that the recommendations be followed; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations laid out in the parental capacity assessment completed by Matthew Danbrooke and report back to the Director as to her progress; [ 52 ] ORDERS that the medical and health needs of the child be met in a timely manner;

[ 53 ] ORDERS that the child be enabled to maintain his Jewish identity by participating in a cultural appropriate Jewish Camp Program during the summer and school vacations; [ 54 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to receive relevant information from any professionals treating the family; [ 55 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s agreement to sign the passport of the child and ORDERS the mother to do so; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 57 ] THE WHOLE until the child’s age of majority; [ 58 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on February 10, 2020 /cd Mtre Christine Waldvogel Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the child Mtre Marc Castonguay Counsel for the mother Dates of hearing: August 6 and 7, 2019; December 16, 2019