2012 QCCQ 14252, 2012 QCCQ 14252

Protection de la jeunesse — 125162 2012 QCCQ 14252 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025711-128 525-41-025710-120 DATE: October 15, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 1995 - and - Y Born on […], 1998 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 15, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the adolescents declared compromised under

section 38 paragraph b) 1) iii) and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motions are the following: • The parents have been separated for many years and up until October 2011, the adolescents lived with the father and stepmother and five year old half-sibling; • The mother has had sporadic contacts with the adolescents for the past eight years; • The adolescents have behavioural issues; • The adolescents and the father have a conflictual relationship; • Y is aggressive in the home; she kicked and hit the father; • Y is defiant and does not respect the father’s parental authority; • The father acts rigidly and aggressively towards the adolescents; • In September Y went to reside with the paternal grandparents;

• In October X went to reside with the paternal grandparents; • The stepmother expressed not wanting the adolescents in the home because of the impact of their behaviours on the five year old half-sibling; • X is followed by a psychologist at the [Hospital A] in order to deal with his feelings; • Y is followed by a psychiatrist at the [Hospital A]; • Y has obsessive behaviours.

She has sleeping and hygienic issues and has cut herself in the past; • Since the adolescents has been living at the paternal grandparents’ home, the father has visited about once per month; • Since the adolescents has been living at the paternal grandparents’ home, the mother called about once per month and has visited four to five times; • The grandparents are leaving for a ten day trip to Israel and upon their return, the paternal grandmother will have to undergo ten weeks of chemotherapy; • The paternal grandparents are unable to continue caring for the adolescents at the present time; • The father is not in a position to have the adolescents entrusted to his care at the present time; • The adolescents expressed clearly not wanting to return to the father’s home. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the adolescents be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 5 ] The father admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the recommended measures.

The father, through his lawyer submits that the security and development of the children are compromised, but under

section 38

f) as they present with serious behavioural disturbances. The father considers that the adolescents were not subject to psychological ill treatment or neglect, as he provided a comfortable home for his children and that he cared for them adequately. The father considers that family therapy would be important, in order to address the family dynamics and that it should take place even if X and Y say that they are not ready. [ 6 ] The father testifies that Y’s behaviour was very difficult and that she exhibited aggressive behaviours.

On one occasion, when he tried to speak to her, she held pillows in front of her face. When he took them away, she ran to the bathroom and locked the door. He gave her many chances to open the door and then broke it down. On another occasion, he had to pick up Y from the police, as she has been caught shoplifting at Zellers and was in possession of items from other stores. She was also suspended from school for being impolite towards some of her teachers. [ 7 ] When speaking about X, the father mentioned that he had minor behavioural problems.

For example, that he was not doing his homework, had been caught lying and had alcohol on one occasion in his room. [ 8 ] The father states that he does not have anger issues and that when he got mad, it was in reaction to the adolescents' behaviours. He admits having called X stupid on one occasion and Y on a few occasions, but only said this when they did it stupid things. The father also admits to having weighed ice cream, as the children were steeling food.

He explains that Y would arrive at supper and say that she was not hungry, when in fact she had been eating before supper. [ 9 ] The father also confirms that Y was asked to leave the home and that X was asked to leave a few weeks later and that they went to stay with their paternal grandparents.

The father says that his wife is resentful to having X and Y back in the home, as the situation was very difficult last year and that she is fearful of the influence they might have on their young daughter. [ 10 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and considers that X and Y are old enough to decide where they want to be living. However, she would be ready to receive them and wishes to have regular contacts with them. [ 11 ] Counsel for the adolescents admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and states that the adolescents agree with the measures recommended by DYP.

They do not wish to return to their father's home. Me Laforce submits that the security and development of the adolescents are compromised under 38 b) 1) iii) and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . The adolescents were subjected to psychological ill treatment by their father and stepmother. The father displayed aggressive behaviour towards his children, threatened them, insulted them and denigrated them. The adolescents’ difficult behaviours were in reaction to the way they were treated in the home and to the tension and conflicts that occurred. [ 12 ] X in his testimony affirmed that is father insulted him, called him stupid and threatened to kill him.

Furthermore, that his father gets angry easily. [ 13 ] In her testimony, Y mentioned that her father insulted her and threatened her. He accused her of steeling food and started weighing the ice cream, the meat and other foods to ensure that her and X had not eaten since the last meal. [ 14 ] The psychiatric assessment of Y was conducted by Dr Octavian Boureanu from the [Hospital A] in May 2011. It was reported by the father that Y had become forgetful, had out of control behaviours, bad moods and did not apply herself in school.

The stepmother reported that Y had nasty fights with her father and stated her concern about Y’s personal hygiene. [ 15 ] On examination, Dr Boureanu observed Y's mood has euthymic and her affect as reactive and appropriate. She also seemed dismissive to what her father and stepmother had to say about her. Individual therapy was recommended to address Y’s issues related to relations with the parents and siblings and for the parents to be followed to help with behavioural management at home and to further

understand family dynamics. [ 16 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mr. [Social Worker 1], youth delegate, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the adolescents’ situation. The evidence reveals that there have been many conflicts in the home and that the children were asked to leave and went to stay with their paternal grandparents. [ 17 ] After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court concludes that the security and development of X are compromised under

section 38

c) of the Youth protection Act , as he was subject to psychological ill treatment by his father and stepmother. The father insulted X and threaten him, and demonstrated very little understanding of his son’s needs and behaviours. X has not exhibited any serious behavioural disturbances at school or at home. The father in his testimony said that X presented minor behavioural problems. Presently, he is doing well both at school and in the foster home. [ 18 ] In the case of Y, the Court concludes that the security and development are compromised under

section 38

c) and

f) of the Youth Protection Act . Y was subject to psychological ill treatment by her father and stepmother. Her father insulted her, threaten her and showed little understanding of her emotional needs. However, the adolescent also exhibited serious behavioural disturbances both at home and at school. She was caught shoplifting, screamed in the home, was aggressive towards her father and stepmother. In school, she was suspended and was failing most of her subjects.

Furthermore, she has caught shoplifting and ran away from home. [ 19 ] Although, her behaviour has improved since her placement, the police called the foster mother to inform her that Y had entered the metro without an Opus card. She also has received detention from school for being late and the foster parents noted that she exhibits passive aggressive behaviours. [ 20 ] X and Y were abandoned by their mother approximately eight years ago. Since that time, the contacts between the mother and the children has been sporadic.

The mother is not in a position to resume the care of her children. [ 21 ] Under circumstances, it is in the adolescents’ best interest to be entrusted to foster care for period of one year. At this time, the adolescents do not wish to return to their father’s care and the father is not ready to receive his children, as his wife is resentful to have them back home. [ 22 ] However, there have been some improvements in the family situation. When the adolescents were first placed in foster care they did not want to see their father.

X now goes to his father’s home on a regular basis for a few hours and Y has been to the home on one occasion. The father and stepmother also say that they are now ready to participate in family therapy in order to address the family dynamics. [ 23 ] It is clear that there is very little connexion or attachment between the children and their stepmother and that the father has been too rigid and strict with his children. For example, the father says that the children stole food.

He does not describe these actions of his children as taking food without permission or as eating between meals and spoiling their supper, but as stealing. This is a very unyielding attitude for a parent who lives in the same home with his children. [ 24 ] The family therapy would be useful in order to address the family dynamics and the underlying anger issues experienced by all the family members.

However, this can only take place when all those involved agree to participate. [ 25 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 26 ] ORDERS that the adolescents, X and Y, be entrusted to foster care for a period of one year; [ 27 ] ORDERS Y to continue receiving individual supportive therapy and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescent wishes to continue receiving therapy; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the father receive individual therapy; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the family engage in family therapy, when all members are ready; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the adolescents and their younger sister, Z, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after discussion with the adolescents and the parents of the child; [ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the adolescents arrange for contacts with their mother; [ 32 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the adolescents and their family for the period of one year; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescents, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 34 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on November 5, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pauline Laforce Counsel for the adolescents Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Marc Morin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: June 22 and October 15, 2012