2019 QCCQ 19476, 2019 QCCQ 19476

Protection de la jeunesse — 197890 2019 QCCQ 19476 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] LOCALITY OF […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-032288-177 Date: May 10, 2019 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT Sections 95 and 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C.

P-34.1 ) 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 Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 10, 2019, in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with an Application for revision of an order rendered by the undersigned, on October 6, 2017, whereby the now two year-old child, X , was entrusted to the care of his parents with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with similar applications regarding the child’s four siblings whose situations are addressed in separate judgments. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application for revision dated November 15, 2017, are as follows: 3.1. the child and siblings are not appropriately supervised; 3.2. on November 6, 2017, the educator noted marks on Y’s arm; 3.3. although the mother stated that the marks came from using coloured markers, the child reported that she had suffered burns to her arm; 3.4. it was determined that while the father was at work and the mother was raking leaves outside, Z spilled the boiling water from where he was making spaghetti onto Y’s arms and hands; 3.5. the mother had been aware that Z was angry with Y that day; 3.6. the mother did not provide appropriate supervision under the circumstances; 3.7. the mother did not seek medical attention for Y; 3.8.

Z has also been physically aggressive with C; 3.9. the mother minimizes the issue of ensuring the child’s supervision; 3.10. the mother stated that she does not agree to ensure better supervision while Z is in the presence of his siblings (reproduced with errors and/or omissions).

[ 5 ] The evidence was heard over the course of several months and numerous assessments were completed to better understand the family’s situation. [ 6 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-7 to D-14: D-7: Court Report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated March 7, 2018; D-8 : Letter from Dr. Niki Saros, dated July 16, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-9: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1] , dated August 1, 2018; D-10: Parental Capacity Evaluation, signed by Dr. Niki Saros, dated August 8, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-11: Mother’s psychiatric expertise, signed by Dr. Daniel Frank, dated August 13, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-12: Father’s parental capacity evaluation and curriculum vitae (en liasse), signed by Dr. Niki Saros, dated November 19, 2018 (filed under

Article 293 C.p.c.); D-13: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1] , dated January 8, 2018; D-14: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1] , dated April 29, 2019.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 7 ] Following numerous provisional measures, the final measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection were that the child be entrusted to his father, at the exclusion of the mother, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 8 ] The mother, assisted by Me Lefebvre, opposed the measures and wanted her child entrusted to her care. [ 9 ] The father, assisted by Me Cloutier, agreed to all the proposed measures. [ 10 ] Me Benoit, representing the child, also approved of the proposed measures.

CONTEXT [ 11 ] The hearing on the merits began before the undersigned on March 16, 2018.

The parties reached an agreement on provisional measures entrusting the child to his parents, with a number of undertakings including the mother’s agreement to undergo a parental capacity assessment. [ 12 ] However, the mother’s inability to adequately supervise her children, one of whom burnt herself with a hot iron, led to the application of immediate protective measures in July 2018 whereby the children were placed in foster care. [ 13 ] Shortly thereafter, the Court ordered that the siblings be returned to the care of their father on the condition that they never be left alone with the mother. [ 14 ] The hearing on the merits was continued on August 16, 2018.

The Director then recommended that the children be entrusted to a foster home.

Both parents opposed the recommendations and wanted the children in their care. [ 15 ] As the mother agreed to begin therapy and the father took steps to become the children’s primary caregiver, the children were returned to their father’s care. [ 16 ] When the hearing was continued on January 15, 2019, the mother undertook to follow all the recommendations in her Psychiatric Assessment as well as to participate in joint counselling with the father, and all parties agreed to maintain the status quo to assess the impact of the mother’s efforts and the hearing was completed on May 10, 2019.

ANALYSIS [ 17 ] The evidence establishes that the mother’s behavior towards her children can be extremely unpredictable and even physically aggressive, especially with her eldest son. [ 18 ] She also has great difficulty adequately supervising her children. For example, regarding X in particular: […] X was observed to have flat affect and distant look in his eyes. He also appeared to be more irritable. It was observed that Ms. A either carries him or straps him in the high chair or stroller although the time is shorter compared to [his brother].

It was noted that X is rarely allowed to walk around or play unless Mr. B is also present. [2] [ 19 ] The mother’s psychiatric assessment helps to explain her volatile behavior as well as her difficulty in addressing her children’s needs: Ms. A can be diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder and an underlying dysthymic disorder – long-standing depressive disorder whose features fall short of those of a more symptomatic, major depressive disorder. […]

Ms. A’s personality has been determinant of her inappropriate behavior toward her children and her dysfunctional interactions with the DYP’s attempts to improve the situation for her and them. The psychiatric condition has impacted Ms. A’s ability to care for her children and her tendency to blame others for difficulties that are not theirs [3] (emphasis added). [ 20 ] The assessment concludes: […] I would recommended that, if and when she is able to consent to such advice, that Ms. A undergo an open-ended course of psychodynamic psychotherapy.

At present, she remains too intimidated and defensive to accept such suggestion. This is unfortunate because she has psychological qualities that suggest that she could benefit from it. [4] […] Currently, Ms. A shows deficiencies in parenting her children and thus represents an ongoing risk to their welfare and development. [5] [ 21 ] The psychiatrist’s conclusions are consisted with the observations in the mother’s parental capacity assessment: The psychometric testing data reveal principal parent characteristics and family context variables that impact Ms. A’s parenting competence.

Although she appears to have some insight regarding her symptoms, this awareness is fleeting. Her distrust and suspiciousness of youth protection appears to be a sentiment that is generalized across people and situations and she is prone to feeling that others are conspiring against her . She isolates and defensively withdraws in self-protection against perceived threats. This cycle may be associated with depressive symptomatology, which on the basis of her ratings is estimated to be at moderate clinical level of severity. Depression depletes her inner resources and contributes to immobilization and inactivity.

In the absence of effective coping skills and problem-solving strategies, it is exponentially more difficult for her to manage day to day caregiving demands and as importantly, to appropriately respond to her children’s need for nurturance, affection, stimulation, and guidance. The neglect of the children’s emotional needs is a significant risk factor [6] (emphasis added). […] The assessment results suggest that Ms. A genuinely identifies with her maternal role and wishes to raise her children in an intact family.

Though the inherent challenge of caring for five young children should not be understated, impressions from the assessment results suggest that there are underlying mental health issues, which serve to limit her capacity to function competently in her parenting role in fundamental areas: basic care, ensuring safety, emotional warmth, stimulation, guidance and boundaries, and stability (emphasis added). […] It is the impression of the undersigned that the psychological needs and physical safety of the children are at risk in the care of Ms. A .

A period of stabilization of her circumstances is considered to be necessary to give her the opportunity to follow recommendations that are proposed in order to assist her to meet minimal parenting standards [7] (emphasis added). [ 22 ] Despite the mother’s repeated claims to make efforts to redress the situation, she unfortunately systematically refuses the services that are offered. [ 23 ] She failed to collaborate with the educator assigned to help the family in the home as well as to participate in the SNAP program. [ 24 ] Unfortunately, the mother also failed to follow-through with her stated intention to seek therapeutic services: On March 25, 2019, this worker asked Ms.

A regarding a referral for therapy. She reported that she does not see the necessity of going into therapy thus she has not taken any steps to obtain a referral from her GP. [8] [ 25 ] Moreover, the parents not only did not begin joint-counselling, the couple broke up as the father claimed: […] it has become very clear to him that he can no longer live with Ms. A. He is willing to take care of the children alone at the exclusion of Ms.

A. [9] [ 26 ] Despite the mother’s repeated expressed intention to seek help, she has failed to follow through with any of the steps recommended to help her better meet her children’s needs. [ 27 ] She is a very hard-working, caring parent who deeply values her role as a mother and clearly loves her children.

However, her erratic, explosive behavior as well as her inability to effectively supervise her children and set appropriate boundaries puts her children at risk. [ 28 ] Despite the consistent recommendations of numerous professionals acknowledging her difficult past and identifying her need for help, she has been reluctant to make any attempt at meaningful change. [ 29 ] She is strongly encouraged to focus on trying to heal herself as much as possible, and in turn to become a more reliable, supportive parent for her children. [ 30 ] In the meantime, the father has demonstrated his commitment to ensuring a steady, comforting presence for his children. [ 31 ] As summarized in his parental capacity assessment: […] Mr.

B shares a close emotional bond with his children. He related to them in a calm manner, and with sensitivity and affection. [10] [ 32 ] It will be essential that the father work closely with the professionals involved to adequately respond to his son’s needs, more particularly regarding possible speech impediments and delays:

Dr. Tessier (pediatrician) noticed that X is not able to combine two works together and he only has vocabulary about 22 words while children of his age usually can speak about 50 words. [11] […] The [daycare] staff is concerned about his muscle function around his mouth as he seems to have difficulty closing his mouth. [12] [ 33 ] Under the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child’s interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS the application; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his father, at the exclusion of the mother; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties and, in the absence of an agreement, that they be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as necessary; [ 38 ] ORDERS that contacts take place minimally twice a week for a minimal duration of two hours; [ 39 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s undertaking to encourage contacts between the child and his mother as soon as her situation has been stabilised; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that contacts be increased taking into account the child’s interest, as the situation allows; [ 41 ] WITHDRAWS certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES the father to exercise those attributes for the purpose of signing any necessary consents for the child’s medical needs; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from any health or therapeutic services required by his condition, more particularly, regarding any speech impediment or delay, if necessary; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the parents take steps to use appropriate means of discipline with the child and refrain from using physical discipline; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child attend daycare on a regular basis; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an educator for as long as necessary; [ 46 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother make an appointment with a general physician to obtain a referral to a clinic that specializes in personality disorders; [ 47 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange information with the professionals involved with the family; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and attend meetings as required; [ 49 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

Signed on July 3, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J.

Me Dominique Douglas Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Me Francis Cloutier Attorney for the father Hearing dates: March 16 and August 16, 2018, and January 15, and May 10, 2019. TD/vl