2020 QCCQ 5102, 2020 QCCQ 5102

Protection de la jeunesse — 204735 2020 QCCQ 5102 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 755-41-003191-197 DATE: July 20, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- X, born [...], 2012 Child -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Section 95 (1) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with an Application for revision of a Court Decision, according to section 95 (1) of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), in the matter of the child X, born on [...], 2012. [ 2 ] The hearing of this application is held jointly with the application of Y, born on [...], 2010 , according to

section 38 YPA for a situation of neglect on the physical plan. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the child necessitates the revision of the Court Order rendered on January 28, 2020, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 5 of the Application.

The Director also alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger for two (2) new situations: a situation of neglect on the health care plan and neglect on the physical plan. [ 4 ] The Director recommends, as key measures, that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center with a follow-up for a duration of nine (9) months. [ 5 ] Because of the mother’s lack of collaboration concerning X , the Director also recommends the withdrawal of parental authority concerning medical authorizations and school registration for both children. [ 6 ] The father is absent but aware of the present audition.

He disagrees with the conclusions proposed by the Director. [ 7 ] The mother is present and denies most of the allegations of the application. She also disagrees with the conclusions proposed. [ 8 ] The attorney who represents the children, on a legal mandate, pleads that even if the children wish to return home as soon as possible it is in their best interest to benefit from a neutral milieu for a certain period. Situation and Analysis [ 9 ] The situation continues to deteriorate for X since the last Court order. [ 10 ] The mother refuses to collaborate with the Director and to respect the Court order.

She plays on words and gives a false

interpretation of the judgement rendered on January 28, 2020, to avoid respecting her obligations. [ 11 ] For instance, she refuses to sign for a psychological evaluation for X when asked to do so by the school, pretending that she disagreed in the first place to this evaluation and that the Court ordered it despite her objection, so her signature is not necessary.

[ 12 ] The mother also refused access to her apartment on many occasions to the case workers, arguing that the Court order does not specifically authorize this access. [ 13 ] The evidence also show that the mother fails to collaborate with X’s school, by refusing to follow the child’s individual tutoring program and by refusing to sign for his registration for 2020-2021.

The school considers that the child should benefit from the program A at Elementary School A , but the mother still opposes to that plan. [ 14 ] On February 25, 2020, a report is retained regarding Y for a situation of neglect on an educational level. [ 15 ] But at the beginning of the evaluation, the Director’s preoccupation rapidly shifts towards the unsanitary conditions in which the children live in. [ 16 ] The father has a few and irregular contacts with the children. [ 17 ] As mentioned before, the case workers make several attempts before being able to visit the mother’s home.

They make many phone calls, unreturned. They sometimes go unannounced, knock on the door and hear people moving inside but no one answers. [ 18 ] The Director petitions the Court on May 14, 2020 on an Application for provisional measures, demanding that the mother collaborates with the case workers, namely to give access to the children and their domicile. The Court orders the mother to collaborate and underlines the importance for the mother to do so. [ 19 ] The Director eventually manages to visit the mother and the children in their home.

They namely observe: ➢ Many objects and trash obstructing the balcony; ➢ A strong smell of cat urine and cannabis inside the house; ➢ The presence of seven (7) cats and cat feces everywhere; ➢ Garbage bags all around; ➢ Dirty dishes on the counter and in the sink; ➢ The children’s room is messy; ➢ The bathroom door is broken; ➢ Windows are broken; [ 20 ] Moreover, the basement is flooded at least twice, with the presence of four (4) feet of water in the basement with garbage bags floating and a dead cat. [ 21 ] The mother refuses that the landlord do the necessary repairs in the house, to a point that he has to call the police on June 5, 2020. [ 22 ] Police officers make a description in their “Rapport d’événement” that confirms the previous observations mentioned.

They add that the bathtub is not functioning and that the kitchen cupboards are covered with black marker drawings. [ 23 ] Pictures are deposited and confirm all these facts. [ 24 ] [Social Worker 2], case worker, also testifies before the Court about the state of the mother on June 5, 2020.

The worker claims that the mother was in a state that she had never seen her in, as she was screaming, swearing, threatening and had foam in the corner of her mouth. [ 25 ] Because of the above, the Court orders provisional measures on June 23, 2020, entrusting X to a rehabilitation center and Y to a foster home. [ 26 ] Upset by the Court’s decision, the mother shows a great lack of sensibility when the workers come to get the children, as she tells them “Bye for life” and refuses to give them hugs and personal stuff, closing the door on them. She also refuses to give their health cards.

The children cry a lot on their way to their respective milieu. [ 27 ] The mother justifies her attitude and testifies before the Court. She explains that she was very hurt to be separated from her children and that she hugged them in the house before they left, but did not want to show them that she was sad. [ 28 ] The mother’s explanation is unlikely in itself. And if what the mother pretends is true, it shows how much she is incapable of placing her children on top of her priorities and preserving them from her difficulties or suffering. [ 29 ] X’s verbalisations and behavior are very concerning.

After his placement, evidence show namely: ➢ The child has incoherent verbalisations such as he is «going to help God in his mission», that «he lives in New York», «travels in time», «has 12 sisters»; ➢ He had difficulty falling asleep and wakes up on several occasions the first night of his placement, disoriented and confused, not knowing where he is;

➢ Has great difficulty with the time line. He does not know the days of the week and does not make the difference between today, yesterday and tomorrow. He can wake up in the morning and wants to eat supper; [ 30 ] After a few days, X seems to appease himself in the rehabilitation center. He is reassured by the educators around him, smiles and relates more and more with others. [ 31 ] The parents have a few visits with their son and with both of them on one occasion to the park. The mother is very adequate at each visit.

The worker even mentions that the mother’s reaction is impressive when she visits X the first time and he wants to return home with her. The mother is able to reassure her son and to allow him to evolve positively in the center. [ 32 ] X has many reactions after the visits. He is violent with the other kids and necessitates one on one intervention. His sleeping difficulties come back and he is incapable of keeping his routine. [ 33 ] The evidence is clear regarding all situations alleged by the Director. [ 34 ] The mother is very suspicious of every help or assistance from the outside.

This general suspicion is evident when she testifies, as she is on the defensive and becomes emotional. She pretends that everybody is lying and against her. [ 35 ] Even though the mother loves her children greatly, she is incapable of assuring their security and development at the moment. Beyond the insalubrity of the house, X’s reactions demonstrate that the mother cannot preserve her children from her own instability.

The mother needs to address her difficulties before we can think of returning the children to their home. [ 36 ] One of the biggest challenge for the Director will be to gain the mother’s confidence during the intervention. [ 37 ] The mother showed that she is capable of sensitivity towards her children. The Director should consider using this asset in trying to work as a team with the mother and maybe both parents eventually.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 38 ] GRANTS the application; [ 39 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are still in danger for the following reason; • 38b)1)iii) educational neglect; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are also in danger for the following reasons; • 38b)1)ii) neglect on health care plan; • 38b)1)

i) neglect on the physical plan; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to an institution operating a rehabilitation centre chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be following agreement between the parties including the degree of supervision; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts between the children be encouraged; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a psychological assessment be made for the child; [ 48 ] WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain rights of the parental authority, namely concerning medical authorizations and school registration and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to sign the authorizations required for medical and school purposes, if the parents do not sign them within 48 hours; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 50 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine (9) months. __________________________________ CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q.

M e Pascale Boucher Attorney for the D.Y.P.

M e Mylène Sabourin-Simard Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 20, 2020 Date of the signature: September 17, 2020