2019 QCCQ 19976, 2019 QCCQ 19976

Protection de la jeunesse — 198121 2019 QCCQ 19976 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] “Youth Division” No: 525-41-035401-199 DATE: October 21, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2019 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 October 21, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that a situation of serious risk of neglect exists for the child. [ 3 ] On June 17, 2019, the child’s attorney requested that the hearing be postponed as the second parental capacity assessment was not yet available. The Youth Protection worker testified to the effect that the mother was doing well. She was to start a parenting class on July 15, 2019.

She was visiting the child regularly and was open to feedback. The Youth Protection worker was able to observe a strong attachment between the mother and the child. The Director was also considering lifting the supervision and encouraging contacts.

The hearing was then set for October 21, 2019. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain in a foster family and that support measures be ordered for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother is in agreement with the Director’s plan and requests that a progressive integration of the child be authorized as soon as she finds an apartment. [ 6 ] The child’s attorney is in agreement with the Director’s plan. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights?

Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The situations of the child’s two siblings are followed by the Director of Youth Protection and by the Court of Quebec, due to serious risk of neglect. X has been placed in the foster home of Ms. B and Mr. C until her age of majority. Y has been entrusted to a foster family until July 21, 2020. [ 9 ] In the past, the mother led a transient lifestyle. She had a history of financial difficulties. On two occasions, the mother integrated the [organism A] with the child’s sister. She had difficulty establishing a proper routine for the oldest child. [ 10 ] The mother took

part in a parental capacity evaluation on March 27, 2018 regarding Y, the child’s brother’s situation. The psychologist reported that the mother “has limitation in her ability to respond to challenges with flexibility and adaptability, particularly

when the situation is congruent with her personal preferences.” [1] [ 11 ] The psychologist reported that “ there are concerns regarding her lack of transparency, accountability and resistance to engaging with professional services .” [2] [ 12 ] During the December 13, 2018 hearing for Y, the child’s sibling, expectations were clearly mentioned to the mother.

She needed to participate in a parenting class and a therapeutic process, to keep a stable residence and employment, to visit her children on a regular basis and to actively collaborate with the Director. [ 13 ] Since mid-February 2019, the mother has been followed by Dr. Jarvis from the CSLC A. [ 14 ] The mother did not seek prenatal care for this child until the last few weeks of her pregnancy.

She was not adequately prepared for his arrival and was not transparent with the Youth Protection worker already involved in her family’s situation. [ 15 ] At the hospital, it was observed that the mother provided with appropriate care for the newborn. She was open to receive constructive feedback. [ 16 ] Following the child’s birth, the mother signed a Provisional Agreement for the child to be placed in a foster family. [ 17 ] On May 9, 2019, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care placement of the child in a foster family. [ 18 ] The mother presently lives with her own mother, Ms. D.

In the past, the relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother has not always been supportive. The maternal grandmother was not approved by the Director as a potential caregiver for the child’s siblings. The mother can also count on her sister’s support. [ 19 ] The mother attended the child’s medical appointments. [ 20 ] The mother is undecided yet as to the possibility to declare Mr. E as the child’s father. [ 21 ] In the past, the mother was evicted twice from [organism A] for not respecting structure and routine.

She reports not being open to receive such service for the future. [ 22 ] Despite the previous recommendations, the mother is not yet followed by a mental health specialist. She is now waiting for an appointment with a psychologist that was referred to her trough the A Program. [ 23 ] The mother took steps to participate in a parenting course that was to begin in July 2019. She took

part in two sessions then stopped attending. She only advised the Youth Protection worker of this in September 2019. During her testimony, she reported developing her parental abilities with the support of the A Program. She remains open to eventually participate in a more formal parenting group. [ 24 ] The mother worked at Tim Horton and is now working at [Company A]. She wishes to find a new apartment for November 2019, if possible.

She has yet to stabilize her residential situation. [ 25 ] During her testimony, the Youth Protection worker clarified that the Director’s goal was to facilitate a slow and progressive integration of the child to the mother’s care, once she finds a proper apartment. [ 26 ] The mother decided to submit herself to a second parental capacity assessment done at the Cultural Centre of the A Hospital. This assessment was not presented as evidence. During her testimony, the mother clarified that it was not a parental capacity assessment per say.

Following her meeting at the A Hospital, it was recommended that she be followed by a psychologist. [ 27 ] The mother visited with the child on a regular basis. During the visits, she cared for him appropriately and responded well to his cues. The child present with a strong attachment to his mother. [ 28 ] In September 2019, the mother’s unsupervised access to the child was increased. [ 29 ] The child remained entrusted to the foster family of Ms. F.

He is doing well and meeting his developmental milestones. [ 30 ] The mother recognizes that, at this point, she is not ready to care for the child on a full time basis. [ 31 ] The maximum period of placement for the child, as mentioned in the Youth Protection Act , will expire on May 9, 2020. [ 32 ] The child’s recent life history is somewhat similar, yet different, to his siblings. The mother will have to demonstrate that she is able to continue prioritizing her child’s needs over her past distrust of the Director. At this point, a serious risk of neglect still exists.

The mother will need to take the appropriate steps to reassure the Director and the Tribunal as to her global capacity to care for her child on a long term basis. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to a foster family;

[ 36 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection has chosen to entrust the child to the foster family of Ms.

F and that the Director of Youth Protection intend to have the child remain entrusted to the same foster family; [ 37 ] ORDERS that frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that, at this point, the mother visit her child at the minimum frequency of twice a week; [ 39 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in professional resources (A program for parenting and counselling for herself); [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations of the assessment completed by Ms.

Niki Saros; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 42 ] AUTHORIZES that the child reintegrate his mother’s care when she will be moved to a new apartment; [ 43 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months; [ 45 ] 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 October 23, 2019 /cd Mtre Isabelle Loranger Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Alec Fafard Counsel for the child Mtre Josée Lefebvre Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 21, 2019