2021 QCCQ 15180, 2021 QCCQ 15180

Protection de la jeunesse — 218775 2021 QCCQ 15180 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 635-41-001063-202 DATE: September 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on December 9, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, district A (Quebec) Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at […], in Town A, district A (Quebec) Mother and B, currently incarcerated at A Detention Centre, in Town B, district B (Quebec) Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on September 19, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2017. At that date the Court declared the security and development endangered and entrusted the child to the maternal grandmother, Ms. C, until September 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and asks that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandmother, Ms.

C, or to a foster family, until September 30, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Ève Laoun. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she disagrees with the measures. She wants her child back under her care immediately. [ 4 ] Despite being dully served, the father is absent and not represented. The Court proceed in his absence. [ 5 ] X who is 4 years old is absent, but represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett.

After hearing the evidence, Me Sinnett submits that the measures are in the best interest of the child. [ 6 ] The child has one sister, Y (3). The Court is also seized with her situation. History of the Situation [ 7 ] On September 30, 2020 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The family situation was known from the DYP since March 2016, as an older child was previously followed. In October 2018, the parents signed voluntary measures and the children remained under their care. They recognized their conflictual relationship and the fact that the children were exposed to such violence.

The mother had suicidal and homicidal thoughts. The mother was diagnosed with borderline personality. Despite the voluntary measures, many events of conjugal violence occurred. In July 2020, the mother made threats to commit suicide if the Social Services do not take her children from her. The children were immediately entrusted to the maternal grandmother where the mother lived. The Court entrusted the children to their maternal grandmother, Ms. C and recommended that the DYP register the children to childcare or a stimulation program, the whole until September 30, 2021.

Facts [ 8 ] X is known to have medical issues such as numerous cavities, snoring problems and he would choke in his sleep. He will be seen by a dentist and an ENT specialist. The DYP worker explains that the mother will be called to fix an appointment and the DYP will be made aware only if the mother sign the consent which is good for only 90 days. When suggested if a Court order would be needed,

she confirms that it could help the DYP to be kept informed about the medical situation. [ 9 ] Also, due to some developmental delays noted such as language, cognitive, physical and motor skills, the nurse recommended that he be referred to the A program. Unfortunately, the mother refused that her son attend such program. [ 10 ] The child was registered at the daycare, but due to a debt, he lost his place. A new request was made, but he is on a waiting list. [ 11 ] The mother still lives at her mother’s place where the children are entrusted.

This gives her the opportunity to have a close contact with her children. The mother is on a waiting list to have her own house. [ 12 ] The mother had a few difficult periods since the last decision: - October 2020: the mother called the DYP following an episode of domestic violence. The father was living with her at the grandmother’s place, and he assaulted the mother.

A safe place was found for her and the children remained with the grandmother; - November 2020: the police intervened due to the mother’s suicidal ideation; - January 2021: the grandmother was out of the village and the mother called saying that she was unable to take care of her daughter alone. The child was sick. She was brought to the nursing. The grandmother confirmed that she was out. She was aware that the mother could not stay alone with her children, but she did not want to bother other family members with such responsibilities; - June 2021: despite the restraining order the parents were together.

The mother broke the Covid-19 house window while the father was there in quarantine. [ 13 ] The mother still displays alcohol consumption issues. She refuses to get help for her addiction. [ 14 ] The grandmother, who takes care of the children since their birth, confirm being capable of taking care on a long term basis if needed. The children are doing well under her care. That being said, the grandmother is still not accredited as a foster family because the foster department is still in the process to do it.

The DYP is not aware of the exact reason for this delay, but supposed that it is due to the lack of staff and the necessity for the foster department worker to travel from Town C to Town A. The DYP also supposed that the grandmother receive allowance and if she does not, it will be retroactive when she has the status of a foster family. [ 15 ] The grandmother is known to be a very dynamic and energetic lady. She likes outdoor activities and travelling outside of the community. The DYP shares with her concerns about the children’s safety when she is not there and she understood those worries.

She signed a commitment with the foster department to provide the name of 2 babysitters to take care of the children during her absences. [ 16 ] The DYP does not recommend that the children be reintegrated under their mother's care for the following reasons: - She still displays alcohol consumption issues; - She is still living in a violent conjugal relationship.

The father is detained until January 2022, but the mother had already planned to resume her relation with him; - She becomes quickly overwhelmed when she has to take care of the children alone; - She does not take the proper steps for the children to attend daycare despite the medical recommendations. [ 17 ] The DYP worker testifies being surprised to hear that today the mother is unsatisfied about the way her mother takes care of her children, because she always confirmed that if she is not able to have her children, she wants them to be entrusted under her mother’s care.

Analysis [ 18 ] The situation remains obviously endangered. The mother is present at home, at beyond the very positive aspect of her daily presence, there is also different issues.

Indeed, she could be become quickly overwhelmed with her parental responsibilities and she neglected to take steps to register her children to the daycare despite the medical recommendations. [ 19 ] The father is currently detained and this detention prevent the children to witness conjugal violence between the parents, but as the parents plan to resume their relation once he is released, the situation will have to be closely monitored to make sure that the children are not in the same situation as before.

Also, the grandmother informed the DYP worker that the father will come at her place considering he has no other place to go. [ 20 ] The situation of X requires a close medical follow-up and it is in his best interest that the DYP be authorized to have access to all the information to react quickly if the mother neglect to attend the appointment or to apply the recommendations. [ 21 ] The Court mentioned being surprised about the delay to assess the grandmother as a foster mother. In the previous decision rendered in September 2020, the process was started. Today, the process is still not completed.

Nothing was provided to the Court to explain such delay except a lack of human resources at the DYP office. According to the evidence, the grandmother maybe receive allowance for taking care of the children, but if she receives, we ignore since when. The financial capacity of the grandmother has a direct impact on the children regarding their basis needs and also regarding their development needs. Indeed, one of the reasons given to explain the non-registration at the daycare was a financial reason.

At a certain point, it is incoherent to reproach to the mother her negligence to register the children, when, the DYP neglect to assess a foster family and to provide the allowance payable in the benefice of the children. [ 22 ] The Court also mentioned that the services, in the situation, were not provided with the appropriate intensity according to the

requirements of the law. Beyond the delay to assess the grandmother, the mother was met only occasionally (once in July with one worker, once in August with another worker). The law imposes that the follow-up be regular, frequent and adapted to the need with the objective to obtain the parents’ collaboration, to insure their comprehension and at the end, to put an end to the situation of endangerment. A meeting once a month with a different worker each time does not permit to create a clinical link respecting the objective of the law.

Also, despite the strong recommendation made by the Court in September for the DYP to register the children at the daycare, the DYP worker is unable to inform the Court about the concrete steps taken to register the child. The only information provides is the fact that in August 2021, verification was made to know if the child was still on the waiting list. Finally, the DYP did not take the urgent steps to have access to the medical file of the children. By this neglect, the DYP did not benefit from the complete portrait of the situation which prevents the DYP from making a complete and adapted follow-up.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2017, are still endangered; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandmother, Ms. C, and if she is accredited as a foster family, ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her as such; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Ms.

C signed a contract with the Director of Youth Protection and commit to respect conditions to ensure the children’s safety when she has to leave the village; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection plan to finish the process of accreditation shortly; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children attend daycare regularly, as soon as a place is available for them; [ 29 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to register the children at the daycare and to continue the process to make sure they could have a place available shortly; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the children receive all the medical cares that they need and notably for X, an appointment with the dentist and with the ENT and also that he benefit from the A Program; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the children’s medical files; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the visits between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning their relationship issues; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seeks help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning his anger management and personal issues; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seeks help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning her mental health and personal issues; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify this decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 43 ] THE WHOLE until September 30, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Kelly Ann Sinnett, attorney for the child

Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: September 22, 2021