2017 QCCQ 1989, 2017 QCCQ 1989

Protection de la jeunesse — 17600 2017 QCCQ 1989 JL4320 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 450-41-006042-163 DATE : JANUARY 18, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : HONOURABLE MONIQUE LAVALLÉE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF THE YOUTH * : X, born on [...], 2002 and [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A, working at [...], Town A (Quebec), [...], district A, Applicant and A , residing at [...], Town B [Country A], [...], and B , [...], Town C (Quebec), [...], district A, Parents ______________________________________________________________________ DECISION ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director or DYP) is asking the Court to declare that the security and the development of X, aged fourteen years old, is in danger for reasons of serious risk of neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] The Director is requesting that the Court : • entrust X to her mother; • authorize contacts between X and her father, as well as her maternal grandparents after agreement and according to the modalities set with the DYP; • order that X and her family receive aid, counsel and assistance and various other measures, the whole for a period of one year. [ 3 ] In support of his application, the Director filed exhibits D-1 to D-5.

On this day, the Court heard the testimony of the social

worker. [ 4 ] The Court was to proceed on the present application on December 9 th , 2016 but the hearing was postponed because the Director had failed to serve the application on the youth’s father. [ 5 ] On that date however, the Court proceeded on an application concerning X’s step-brother Y. At that hearing, the children’s maternal grandmother testified and the parties agreed that her testimony be entered into evidence in X’s file. [ 6 ] X’s father is absent from today’s hearing and is not represented by counsel. He lives in [Country A] and was served with the present application on January 11 th .

The social worker has tried to reach him on several occasions, but the father has not returned any of his calls or answered his letter. [ 7 ] The day before the hearing, the father’s spouse left the case worker a message stating that the father did not intend to attend the Court hearing. [ 8 ] For these reasons, the Court grants the Director’s request to reduce the 10 day delay of notice provided by law and proceeds with the hearing. [ 9 ] The mother is not present at today’s hearing. Her counsel informs the Court that she is ill and therefore, could not be present.

Her counsel however states that she has a clear mandate from her client who wishes that the case proceed in her absence. [ 10 ] The mother consents to the filing of the various reports and is in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 11 ] X, who was present on December 9 th , 2016, chose not to be at today’s hearing. Her counsel also states that he has a clear mandate from his client and is ready to proceed in her absence. [ 12 ] The youth’s counsel also consents to the filing of the reports and is in agreement with the DYP’s recommendations.

The facts [ 13 ] The Director of Youth Protection accepted for assessment a report concerning X in October 2016.

At that time, X was living at her maternal grandparents’ home with her step-brother Y, her aunt and two uncles. [ 14 ] The DYP was involved in X and Y’s life in the past, from December 2006 to February 2010 and again from November 2010 to July 2011. [ 15 ] During the DYP’s first involvement, X and Y had already been entrusted to their grandmother by the mother and remained there for over three years, until 2009 when they returned to live with their mother. [ 16 ] The relationship between the mother and grandmother has been conflictual for many years.

In 2009, the DYP returned the children to their mother, notably because of the grandmother’s lack of objectivity concerning the children’s mother. [ 17 ] In November 2010, when the Director intervened for the second time, X was living with her parents and her step-brother Y. The Director concluded at the time that the children were victims of neglect concerning their educative and health needs.

Various services were provided to the family and the file was closed in July of 2011 because the situation had improved. [ 18 ] In August 2014, the Director accepted another report which revealed that the mother’s living partner had a substance abuse problem, was aggressive towards the children and violent with the mother. Because the mother had ended the relationship even before the DYP intervened, the file was closed. [ 19 ] In February 2015, the Director accepted yet another report.

The assessment revealed a situation of educative neglect, that the children were exposed to conjugal violence in the mother’s home and that they were at serious risk of neglect because of their mother’s mental health problems. [ 20 ] Since the mother had already, once again, entrusted her children to the maternal grandparents and services by the CSSS were being put into place, the DYP concluded that the security or the development of the children were not endangered and closed the file. [ 21 ] When the DYP intervened concerning the present report, Y and X had now been living at their grandparents’ home for approximately two years. [ 22 ] They have had irregular contacts with their mother.

The mother states that she tried to see her children more often but was not able to do so because of the grandmother’s obstruction. [ 23 ] X is described as a quiet child. She eats little and has trouble gaining weight.

She has an academic delay in school. [ 24 ] X states she is always sad and sometimes cries herself to sleep. [ 25 ] She would like to see her parents more often and knows that her grandmother is worried when she spends time with her mother. [ 26 ] Although things goes relatively well at her grandmother’s, she states that she doesn’t fell at home there. [ 27 ] On the other hand, she has bad memories of when she lived with her mother (conjugal violence, drug use) and is skeptical of her

mother’s ability to maintain her present positive situation. [ 28 ] She feels caught in the middle of the conflict between her grandmother and her mother. [ 29 ] At her grandmother’s home, X seems to do a lot of the caregiving for her brother. Recently, at one of his doctor’s appointment, she was mainly the one who answered the doctor’s questions and even corrected her grandmother’s answers concerning Y’s behavior. [ 30 ] The mother has a past of instability and conjugal violence.

She is presently living on a disability allowance following the last episode of conjugal violence that she suffered when her neck was broken. She also had serious financial difficulties which made her unable to provide for her children. [ 31 ] The mother’s situation has been stable for the past year and a half. More specifically, since the summer of 2015. [ 32 ] She has rebuilt her self-confidence.

She is now in a positive relationship with a man who is supportive, who does not have substance abuse problems and who is not violent. [ 33 ] Because she had stabilized her life, the mother informed the grandmother that she wished to have the children back to live with her for September 2016.

According to the mother, that is when the grandmother seriously began to obstruct her access to the children. [ 34 ] The grandmother testified at Y’s hearing on December 9 th , 2016. [ 35 ] She stated she has concerns about the children going back to live with their mother, especially considering Y’s special needs and the various services he requires. [ 36 ] Because of the past experiences, the grandmother does not believe the mother will be able to answer the children’s various needs, and is concerned that she will not follow up with the various doctors’ appointments, or their school work, or be able to provide the children with basic necessities such as food. [ 37 ] The grandmother admits she knows nothing about the mother’s present situation.

The Court understands from her testimony, that she does not have a high opinion of the children’s mother. [ 38 ] On October 24 th , 2016, the Court rendered a provisional measure entrusting the children to their grandmother, while authorizing contacts with their mother, after agreement and according to modalities set with the DYP. [ 39 ] The evidence shows that following that provisional Court order, the grandmother has shown a tendency to impede the mother’s access or her authority. [ 40 ] A week-end visit at the mother’s place was planned from the 18 th to the 20 th of November.

When the mother tried to confirm the visit the day before, she called the grandmother’s home on several occasions, but was never able to reach the children. The social worker also tried to reach the grandmother to understand what had happened, but was never able to speak to anyone. Someone would pick up the phone but when the social worker asked to speak to the grandmother, the line went dead. The grandmother states that the mother never tried to call her.

Since the mother was not able to confirm her visit, the visit never took place. [ 41 ] The mother also had made arrangements with the school, in order for the children to take the school bus to her home on the days she would have the children. The grandmother disagreed with that arrangement and said so to the social worker, who stated he was in agreement with the mother’s position.

The grandmother finally communicated with the school and asked that the children not be able to take the school bus to their mother’s home, saying she was too worried. [ 42 ] At the December 9 th hearing, the grandmother agreed that it is important that the children not be exposed to the conflict between her and the children’s mother, and stated she would not do so. [ 43 ] If the children are to go to their mother’s, the grandmother asks to have as much access as possible with her grandchildren. [ 44 ] When the hearing was postponed in X’s case on December 9 th , 2016, the Court rendered a provisional measure entrusting her to her mother and authorizing contacts with her maternal grandparents. [ 45 ] Today, the case worker informs the Court that X is doing well at her mother’s home and that she is happy to be there. [ 46 ] She also continues to do well in school. [ 47 ] She maintains contacts with her grandparents and these contacts are in no way hindered by the mother. [ 48 ] The mother, her boyfriend, X and Y were even invited to the grandparents’ home during the Christmas Holidays. [ 49 ] A case worker has been appointed and has begun to offer the family a social follow-up.

Protective measures [ 50 ] The Court has no doubt that the grandmother deeply loves her grandchildren and salutes her devotion to them over the years. [ 51 ] The evidences shows however that despite the grandmother’s devotion, X did not feel at home there. She felt sad all the time,

missed her parents and felt caught between the two most significant women in her life. [ 52 ] Although the grandmother clearly has an unfavourable bias against the mother, some of the concerns she raised were quite legitimate considering the family’s past history. [ 53 ] The evidence shows however that the mother has greatly improved her situation in the past year and a half, and that she is willing to work with the various services to ensure her children’s return to her care is a success. [ 54 ] Although the last six weeks have gone well and allow for a certain degree of optimism, it will be very important that both X and the mother continue to cooperate with the case worker, and be open and honest about any difficulties as they occur, so that solutions may be found. [ 55 ] It will also be very important that X is not exposed to any conflicts between her mother and her grandmother, who remains a significant figure in her life. [ 56 ] Considering the evidence presented, the Court is the opinion that the Director’s recommendations are in X’s best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the present amended application for protection; DECLARES that the security or the development of the youth X is in danger for reasons of serious risk of neglect and psychological ill- treatment; ENTRUSTS the youth X to her mother; AUTHORIZES , in the youth X’ best interest, contacts with her father and with her maternal grandparents, after agreement and according to the modalities established with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the measures set forth to put an end to the present situation of endangerment; TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother and the maternal grandmother’s commitment not to expose X to their conflicts; ORDERS that a person working for the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the youth X and her family, for a period of one year ; ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Monique Lavallée, J.C.Q.

M e Adèle-Anne Briand For the Director of Youth Protection M e Stéphanie Côté For the mother M e Sébastien Gagnon For the adolescent Date of hearing : January 18, 2017