r v. A, 2017 QCCQ 3766

Protection de la jeunesse — 171525 2017 QCCQ 3766 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004935-154 DATE: February 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 2007 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF A YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTRES Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On November 23, 2015 the Court revises and extends measures of protection applied in the situation of the child X.

Various measures are put in place for one year, while maintaining the child in his maternal environment. [ 2 ] More specifically, the Court authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to exchange pertinent information with the professionals working with the family and this, in the mother’s presence. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the child’s situation continues to require the application of protective measures for another 9 month period, namely the general orientation already in place. [ 4 ] Further alleging the mother’s resistance to the coherent application of the various recommendations made to address her son’s issues, the Director seeks an additional order authorizing their services to obtain strictly relevant information concerning the child concerning his therapeutic and academic progress and this, in the event that his mother continue to deny access to these. [ 5 ] The mother subscribes to the Director’s position, save as to the issue of the exchange of information with other professionals.

She wishes to maintain the previous order, although she is disposed to determining a more fluid manner of keeping her apprised of such (e-mails, chain, etc.) [ 6 ] The father is absent but represented by attorney. He supports the mother’s position, but leaves the appreciation of the situation to the discretion of the Court. [ 7 ] As for the child, he indicates not seeing the pertinence of protective measures, but concedes to his mother’s position.

He considers that it is important that his mother remain implicated in any discussions relating to his situation. [ 8 ] Context [ 9 ] X resides with his mother. [ 10 ] He has sporadic contacts with his father, who has ongoing dependency issues and maintains little involvement in his son’s development. [ 11 ] Since the last order, X continues to present significant behavioural and academic difficulties.

His diagnoses include oppositional defiance disorder with possible conduct disorder, attention disorder and hyperactivity disorder. [ 12 ] Until May 2016, the mother receives the services of an educator to help her address her child’s behaviour issues.

[ 13 ] X’s school attendance and academic performance remain ongoing issues. He has severe academic delays and difficulties reading and writing. He initially receives services of a Home Bound Tutor for six hours a week, as he is unable to function on a full-time basis in a school environment. [ 14 ] In late August 2016, X commences a six-week assessment for his potential integration in the Jewish General Day Treatment Program.

This program offers an intensive and comprehensive multimodal day intervention with services from a special educator and child care workers, social skills training, neuropsychological and psychiatric evaluation as well as family therapy. [ 15 ] His mother attends a four-week mandatory Parenting Program within the same assessment. [ 16 ] In September, a multidisciplinary meeting is held with the treating professionals involved with X.

Although it is established that the treatment program would be beneficial for X, the mother initially refuses to sign the consent form permitting the exchange of information between the psychiatrist and the other professionals offering services, namely the Director of Youth Protection or the social worker from the CLSC A. She insists that her presence is required for any discussions concerning her son. Told her son’s enrollment is contingent on her participation and involvement, the mother finally resigns herself to sign one week later. [ 17 ] X commences the program.

He makes significant improvements as to his behaviours and responds well to the structure and routine in place. As of the same period, he continues to attend school on a half-day basis. [ 18 ] Gradually, X starts missing days at the day program, without justification. He also fails to complete his homework on a constant basis. The professionals at the program express concerns as to the child’s hygiene and the routine at home.

The mother’s participation and communication with the professionals is inconsistent. [ 19 ] X starts questioning his participation in the program. [ 20 ] In November, the professionals responsible for the program meet with the mother in view of addressing these problematic issues. The reasoning is detailed as follows (Discharge

summary, D-12): Unfortunately, there were several issues that hindered X’s continued progress at the JGH. These issues included: frequent absenteeism (10 missed days), significant treatment alliance issues (difficulty of the mother to collaborate with daily contact with the team, difficulty to allow the team to consult with network partners readily which when stated as a condition by the team was felt to be coerced by the mother, difficulty trusting the team which resulted in placing the child in a bind).

As a result, and after thorough discussion and consultation with the experienced multidisciplinary teams of the JGH, it was felt to be counter-therapeutic to this family to continue the treatment without the following conditions: 1. X to attend the program on a regular basis and absenteeism to be medically justified. 2. Psycho-educator from DYP A to be allowed in the home in order to provide parental support to the mother, with respect to parent behavioral management, daily routines, and in lieu of the weekly family therapy at the JGH. 3.

Daily contact with the teacher or primary worker in order to promote a collaborative relationship with the team, and to support X’s progress through a positive message. [ 21 ] Ms A rejects the therapeutic conditions recommended and declares finding inacceptable the insistence on collaborative care, namely that DYP or a psycho-educator communicate with the day program. She chooses to reject the plan put forth despite the recognizance of the benefits of the program and her son’s developmental issues.

Consequently, X is discharged from the program, against medical advice. [ 22 ] The mother testifies to being fully invested in her son’s development. She has strong opinions as to the best means of addressing his various difficulties.

She insists on being involved in any discussions or exchanges of information concerning her son, citing that in the past, miscommunications and varying perceptions of the information exchanged, are the cause of confusion and ultimately, delays as to responses to her son’s needs. [ 23 ] The mother is amenable to finding alternative means to maintain the fluidity of the exchanges of communication between the various professionals, be it by chain mail, e-mails, etc. [ 24 ] Analysis and decision [ 25 ] X’s behavioural difficulties continue to severely impede his functioning on all levels.

The evidence demonstrates that he requires clear structure and routine, applied in a consistent manner by his various environments. [ 26 ] The evidence establishes that the situation of endangerment continues notwithstanding the application of protective measures.

This is explained not only by the complexities of his behavioural issues, but by the consistent resistance of his family environment to fully cooperate in the application of services. [ 27 ] As such, the Court endorses the general orientation put forth by the Director. [ 28 ] Remains the contentious issue pertaining to the exchange of information between the Director and the other professionals offering services to X. [ 29 ] The Director alleges, with reason, that the efficient application of protective measures requires the flow of information between the various players surrounding the child, namely the caseworker, doctors, school authorities, etc.

The ongoing complexities of X’s situation and the various services required to accompany him and his family render this an imperative for the attainment of the objectives of the intervention, namely resolution of the situation of endangerment.

[ 30 ] Furthermore, within its mandate to execute the protective measures ordered by the Court, the Director requires not only access to the child, but to his environment and the services surrounding him. To this end, the participation and consent of the parents is an essential element. [ 31 ] There is a presumption that parent’s exercise their authority in their child’s best interests as they are the best placed to evaluate their needs.

Such is a fundamental right which bears restriction only in exceptional circumstances. [ 32 ] As such, the Director’s request to exchange information with the various professionals working with the child outside the mother’s purview, translates to a restriction of her parental authority. [ 33 ] The Court adds at this junction that the father’s parental authority is also in question, although no issue is brought forth to this effect, presumably because the mother is the primary caregiver. [ 34 ] Within the application of the Youth Protection Act, the Court is bound by the limitations of the protective measures which are specifically designated, which can include the withdrawal of certain attributes of parental authority: 91.

Where the tribunal concludes that the security or development of the child is in danger, it may, for the period it determines, order the implementation of one or more of the following measures: (…) (

n) that the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the parents and granted to the director or any other person designated by the tribunal; [ 35 ] The Court recognizes the mother’s involvement and right to be an integral part of the decisions taken in her son’s situation, and such is not the issue. What is pertinent in this evaluation is that her continued resistance to the collaborative partnership required to address her son’s issues is an impediment to the application of protective measures.

As such, this decision is contrary to her son’s best interests. [ 36 ] Her decision to discharge her son from the day program instead of offering her full cooperation and trusting the expertise offered by the multidisciplinary team tending to his needs, is a potent example of such. [ 37 ] In this case, X’s best interests must supersede parental authority, by allowing the professionals be able to consult and exchange in a timely manner.

The Court will therefore partially withdraw the parent’s parental authority in order to permit such. [ 38 ] It is important to note that this exchange of information in no way restricts the Director’s obligation to keep the parents informed of their child’s situation nor does it constitute a restriction of the parent’s decisional rights as to the implementation of services. [ 39 ] It is crucial that X receive the services required by his situation and that the next period of measures engender an improvement as to his functioning.

All parties involved must cooperate together in order to allow the coherent structure and routine he requires to develop positively. [ 40 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 41 ] PARTIALLY GRANTS the motion for revision and extension of a Court order; [ 42 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his mother’s care; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of the child’s contacts with his father be determined following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the father not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in his son’s presence; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the services of an educator be put in place and this, as long as deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 47 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in the measures; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the mother continue to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, including meeting with the worker on a regularly scheduled basis; [ 49 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make scheduled as well as unscheduled visits to the family domicile; [ 50 ] ORDERS that the parents report, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation and the child’s evolution; [ 51 ] TAKES ACT that the mother accepts to participate with the services of an educator and to this end, will allow access to the child in his family environment;

[ 52 ] PARTIALLY WITHDRAWS the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority from the parents and authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and exchange relevant information with the professionals engaged in the child’s academic and/or therapeutic progress; [ 53 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to advise the parents in a timely manner of any such communications, either verbally or in writing; [ 54 ] TAKES ACT that the child’s file will be transferred to the Montérégie region in an imminent fashion; [ 55 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 9 months; [ 56 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Sym-Anthony Davis Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: December 13, 2016