2018 QCCQ 20509, 2018 QCCQ 20509

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811614 2018 QCCQ 20509 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002016-167 DATE: November 1, 2018 (written judgment rendered on March 11, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on August 14, 2017, regarding the child X , born on [...], 2012. At that date the Court declared the security and development still in danger and entrusted the child to a foster family until August 31, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his mother and that the placement has to be prolonged until August 7, 2019.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Léonard. She recognizes that the security and development of the child are still in danger and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The child is absent but represented by Me Neptune. The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in his best interest. Historical situation [ 5 ] On September 15, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 4 years old and suffered from leukemia. He received medical treatment in Town A since August 2015, and he required a daily follow-up.

He was very vulnerable and was unable to live at home. Her mother displayed unpredictable behaviours, and X was scared of her. The mother admitted her alcohol consumption issues and the impact of this consumption on her child. An improvement was noted after the provisional hearing as the mother was more present and involved. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were in danger [1] and maintained the child with his mother.

The Court also ordered that health care be provided and order the mother to respect the rules set out by the MNQ [2] , the whole until the end of March 2017. [ 6 ] On March 29, 2017 , Justice Gravel revised the previous decision. The Court noted that X stayed in Town A since September 2016 for his treatments. He was living with his mother at the MNQ. The mother still displayed alcohol consumption issues. Steps were done to be able to offer the health-care services in Town B and the mother also need help to be able to answer the very special needs of her son.

The Court maintained X with his mother. [ 7 ] On August 14, 2017 , the situation of X was revised. He needed more frequent health care services. As his mother was not reachable for a certain period of time, on May 3, 2017, X was entrusted to a foster family in Town A. The mother agreed and told she was tired. She expressed not being able to go so often in Town A and she would prefer to stay in the North to continue to address her personal issues. The Court entrusted the child to a foster home until the end of August 2018. [ 8 ] On August 23, 2018 , the hearing was postponed because of weather conditions.

The mother wished to be able to assist to the hearing. The Court maintains the status quo until November 1, 2018.

Facts [ 9 ] X is still suffering from leukemia and is needing close follow-up and several cares on a daily basis. The oncologist insists on the importance for X to be no more than 60 minutes from a hospital. [ 10 ] The oncologist also noted that he has developmental delays, particularly with his speech and he has behavioural issues surrounding the departure of his mother.

On April 23, 2018, the oncologist strongly recommends: - A formal developmental assessment by a general pediatrician; - A psychoeducational testing based on this evaluation; - A psychological follow-up for his behavioural issues related to the separation from his family. [ 11 ] The DYP worker indicates that the formal developmental assessment by a general pediatrician and the psychoeducational testing are not done yet.

As for now, X only benefits from an art therapy and a follow-up with a speech therapist. [ 12 ] On September 13, 2018, a neuropsychological evaluation was done and the main recommendations are the following: • Extra help in school is required. The nature and extent of the help measures should be determined in an Individualized Education Plan with Ms.

B and the school personnel, but should certainly include resource teaching that targets the development of pre-academic skills. • Evaluation and follow-up in Psychology is strongly recommended, to evaluate and address psychological issues related to his complex medical (disease and treatments) and psychosocial (separation from his family, frequent changes in primary caregivers) history. It could be conducted by the psychotherapist X is currently followed by, if she feels comfortable to conduct such an evaluation (to rule- out trauma- and stressor-related disorders, among other things).

Alternatively, should the family wish to, a “Demande de Services Inter- Etablissements (DSIE)” can be sent to their local CISSS. • Stability (e.g. avoiding frequent changes of caregiver) is known to be associated with improved learning and reduced stress in children. • A re-evaluation in Psychology is recommended, in 18 to 24 months (if difficulties persist despite the provision of interventions and despite exposition to similar opportunities of learning as his peers), in order to rule-out a specific learning disorder.

This type of assessment could be conducted by the School Psychologist. [ 13 ] The neuropsychologist also made some other recommendations including an evaluation in audiology. The appointment was scheduled for October 2018. [ 14 ] He is in the same foster family since August 2017, and he is doing well. His behavioural disturbances seem to decrease. [ 15 ] Since the last order, the mother went twice to Town A to see her son but did not contact him by phone.

She explains that he is home sick and it’s very difficult for him to speak with her over the phone. [ 16 ] The DYP worker insists on the importance for the mother to request for contact with her son and explains how she can have access to him. She says that the DYP could organize a minimum of two access in person a year and more if the mother is available. She also says that she could have access to her son by videoconference at the DYP office or by Skype/Facetime at the mother’s place. [ 17 ] The mother admits all the alleged facts and she agrees with the recommendations.

Even if the reports mentioned three times that she would like to speak with the judge, she was too shy to do it and her lawyer speaks on her behalf. She explains that her client was very confused and she did not understand the system. She understood that she was not allowed to have contact with her son. Because of that she was feeling hangry and the communication with the DYP worker was not ideal. Before the hearing, the mother had the opportunity to speak in person with her lawyer and to better understand the role of the DYP.

Now she understands that the access are allowed and she can ask for it as much as she wants. She feels relieved and her lawyer is convinced that will help to improve the communication with the DYP. [ 18 ] The mother also expresses being torn between the fact that she has to work to be able to provide for her other children and to be able to assume all her financial responsibilities and her desire to be close to X who has to be in Town A. She is very sad. Analysis [ 19 ] The Court is very receptive to the difficult situation in which the mother is.

She would like to be with her son but she can’t leave the other children alone. It’s very difficult for parents in the South to have a child at the hospital and to take care of the other children at home and to continue to work. The Court understands it’s much more difficult for a single mother in the North with a child hospitalized in the South. [ 20 ] That being said, even if she is very far from her son, she still has responsibilities towards him. It’s certainly difficult to conciliate all the responsibilities, but it’s not impossible.

X is receiving very hard treatments, he is far from his family, from his community, from his culture. The most important he needs actually is to know that his mother, the most significant person in his life, thinks about him, cares for him, and loves him. [ 21 ] The Court asks the mother to realize the importance and the benefits of a high frequency of contacts, not necessarily in person, but by phone or by video calls. After receiving the explanations from her lawyer, the Court saw that the mother understands.

Even if it’s tough to see her son in this situation, she will take on her and she will call him frequently. They miss each other and there is no reason for not benefit from the technology to offset the distance.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2012, are still in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court, in person at regular intervals to the DYP and informs him of any change in the current situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the mother fully cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection, with the MNQ and with the staff of the Montreal Children’s Hospital to take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health care and health services required by his medical condition; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be organized in person, as often as possible; [ 30 ] Considering the specific needs of X, ORDERS that the contacts by phone or videoconference (Skype, Facetime, etc.) between the child and the mother be organized as frequently as possible; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a formal developmental assessment by a general pediatrician be performed and all recommendations be followed; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a psychoeducational testing based on the general pediatrician evaluation be performed and all recommendations be followed; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a psychological follow-up be provided to the child; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the report of the neuropsychologist be provided to the school of X and to the foster family and that all the recommendations be followed and explained if necessary; [ 35 ] According to the neuropsychology assessment report, ORDER that a re-evaluation in psychology be performed between March and September 2020 (if difficulties persist despite the provision of interventions and despite exposition to similar opportunities of learning as his peers), in order to rule-out a specific learning disorder.

This type of assessment could be conducted by the School Psychologist; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the mother and the foster family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until April 16, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Marianne Léonard, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: November 1, 2018