2017 QCCQ 18722, 2017 QCCQ 18722

Protection de la jeunesse — 179089 2017 QCCQ 18722 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-032426-173 DATE : May 12, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2003 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to declare that the security and the development of X are endangered, as a result of a serious risk of negligence. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the mother’s mental health has deteriorated following her doctor’s decision to cease injections meant to control her schizophrenia.

Although she has since resumed her treatment, a certain period of time is required to achieve stability. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the child remain in a foster family for a period of six months along with a social follow up for a period of nine months. For the purpose of obtaining the mother’s adhesion to the intervention plan, the Director proposes to authorize reintegration after three months. [ 4 ] All of the allegations are admitted by the mother and the adolescent who consent to the measures proposed.

Through his lawyer, the adolescent requests that the Court recommend a change of foster family. He explains that the current family resides a long way from his school. Consequently, he spends an excessive amount of time travelling back and forth, causing fatigue and making him unhappy. The state of endangerment [ 5 ] The family is known to social services.

A finding of endangerment was pronounced in November of 2009 and the family was followed until the expiration of the measures in June 2011. [ 6 ] Essentially, the evidence establishes the following: [ 7 ] On March 8, 2016, the Director retained a signalement in relation to concerns regarding the mother’s erratic behaviour stemming from her mental health issues.

A provisional agreement for a thirty day foster placement was concluded as a result of the mother’s inability to care for her son at that time. [ 8 ] During the course of the placement, a second signalement was reported concerning an incident in the home on March 26, 2017. [ 9 ] On that day, the adolescent was visiting his mother when she suffered a psychotic episode leading to aggressive and intimidating behaviour. She became verbally threatening towards her son and called the police to complain about his behaviour. She was incoherent and frantic on the phone.

The police arrived on the scene and found the adolescent in a chair up against the wall with his mother standing over him in an agitated state. The boy appeared fearful and was curled up in his chair, unmoving.

[ 10 ] When the police attempted to intervene, the mother reacted aggressively and refused to cooperate. She yelled continuously at her son, ordering him to remain in the chair. Visibly out of control, the police attempted to calm her down without success. Given her state, a decision was made to handcuff the mother while awaiting emergency medical assistance. During the procedure, the mother became violent and punched one of the officers and pulled the hair of another. [ 11 ] Eventually, the mother was controlled by the police and was taken to hospital by ambulance.

The Mother’s Mental Health [ 12 ] The mother has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and is followed regularly by Dr. Malcom Davis at the Jewish General Hospital. She has always been cooperative and has taken her medication without fail over a number of years. Having been stable over a long period of time, a decision was made to cease her injections. However, she developed increasing paranoia and anxiety as a result. [ 13 ] Following her hospitalisation on March 26, 2017, the mother resumed the injections and has cooperated fully with the treatment plan.

The severity of her symptoms has decreased and will likely abate within a few months. It is expected that she will continue to comply with the treatment plan and should make a full recovery. The Family Dynamics [ 14 ] The mother affirms that her son doesn’t respect her parental authority. Although she acknowledges that she is unable to care for him at this time, she considers that placement is necessary in order to teach him discipline. [ 15 ] On the other hand, the mother is of the opinion that the foster family allows her son too much freedom.

Consequently, when he returns home for visits, he doesn’t listen. [ 16 ] During an interview with the social worker, the adolescent expresses that he is frequently in conflict with his mother who tends to punish him excessively by taking away his devices without justification. He feels isolated and unhappy when this occurs.

Although he is not in favour of placement, he acknowledged that some time away from his mother was required. [ 17 ] The youth also testifies that his mother regularly threatens him with placement in a detention centre if he doesn’t “shape up”. [ 18 ] During the hearing, the mother requested that the Court prohibit the adolescent from having any contact with her ex-partner B. In essence, the adolescent considers that he plays a paternal role in his life and he wishes to maintain contact. The mother is concerned with the nature of their relationship and the influence that Mr.

B exercises on her son. [ 19 ] Consequently, the mother has forbidden her son from seeing Mr. B; the adolescent however has persisted in maintaining contact. [ 20 ] The mother’s request to the Court was unannounced and had not been evaluated by the Director. In addition, the information available to the Court on this issue was insufficient to make a determination one way or another. However, it serves to demonstrate the extent of the conflict between them. Both are adamant and maintain their positions.

THE MEASURES [ 21 ] The Director is proposing six months of placement in a foster family with the possibility of progressive reintegration after three months along with a social follow up for nine months. The objective is to allow the mother the time required to stabilize her mental health before returning the adolescent to her care. [ 22 ] All parties adhere to this proposal that seeks to eventually reunite the family in a secure and stable environment. Analysis and Conclusion [ 23 ] Clearly, the mother’s mental breakdown was the result of a medical decision that backfired.

The evidence demonstrates that when properly medicated, the mother’s schizophrenia is controlled and she adequately assumes her parental role. [ 24 ] The mother is presently in the process of stabilizing her mental health and it is expected that she will fully recover over the next two or three months. [ 25 ] That being said, the evidence has also highlighted difficulties in the context of the relationship between the mother and her son that may or may not be related to her recent medical problems.

Either way, the tension in their relationship is evident and requires monitoring. [ 26 ] The adolescent’s visits home have not gone well to date. The family will require services to address their relationship issues irrespective of the mother’s medical issues. Currently, they have opposing perceptions regarding the root causes of their difficulties. The risk of more conflict is predictable if not addressed before the reintegration process begins.

It is expected that the Director will provide assistance in that regard. [ 27 ] Considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child is endangered for the reasons alleged by the Director and that the measures proposed are in his interest. [ 28 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 29 ] GRANTS the motion;

[ 30 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent are endangered as a result of a serious risk of negligence; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the adolescent be entrusted to a foster home for a period of six months ; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES progressive reintegration to the mother’s care after three months; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the adolescent and his mother be determined by the DYP including supervision if deemed necessary, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts will be encouraged; [ 34 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent, ORDERS that she continue to take the necessary steps to address her mental health issues and to follow through with the recommendations of the involved professionals; [ 35 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to have access to all pertinent information from the accessing or treating professionals involved with the family; [ 36 ] CONSIDERING the distance between the adolescent’s current foster family and the school that he attends, RECOMMENDS that the DYP look into a different placement allowing him to be closer to his school; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family for a period of nine months ; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

SIGNED IN CITY A On May 25, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Sym Davis Attorney for the D.Y.P. Sonia Harvey Attorney for the adolescent Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: May 12, 2017 KO/lf