2017 QCCQ 19918, 2017 QCCQ 19918

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710340 2017 QCCQ 19918 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000228-173 614-41-000229-171 DATE: August 25, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2003 and Y, born on [...], 2007 CHILDREN ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR 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 Director of Youth Protection presents a motion asking the Court to extend the placement of Y and X in a foster family until they reach the age of majority. This motion is challenged by both parents who ask for a shorter placement of one year.

M e Marie-Josée Ayoub acts on behalf of the mother and M e Michel Grenier on behalf of the father. Both children are present and represented by M e Constantin Kiryakidis. X also challenges the petition, asking for a shorter placement. Y, for her part, is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 2 ] On December 16, 2015, the parties signed an agreement on voluntary measures.

The parties recognized the following facts: - Child is declared at risk, her security and well-being is compromised; - Father is abusing drugs and alcohol on a regular basis; - Both parents are unstable, they also have marital conflicts; - Parents are separated; [ 3 ] The measures to put an end to the situation were the following: - That the child remain in a foster home for a period of twelve months ; - That the father attend and complete an alcohol and drug treatment program and refrain from all mood altering substances; - That the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; - That the parents meet with the child’s caseworker bi-weekly;

- That the parents seek professional help to address their personal issues related to marital conflicts; - That the mother agree to seek mental health services and fully collaborate with mental health professionals; - That the Director be authorised to obtain and share information with all the service providers working with the family; - That aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of one year. [ 4 ] On December 16, 2016, a second agreement on voluntary measures was agreed upon.

The facts, recognized by the parents, are exactly the same as those from the previous agreement. As for the measures, the only one that is not the same is for the length of the placement in a foster home, which is six months. [ 5 ] The report filed at the hearing has been written by Mrs. [Social Worker 2] who is not produced as a witness. Mrs. [Social Worker 1], the current caseworker, was assigned to this file only a couple of weeks before the hearing.

Even though she checked on the family a few times in the past (unannounced visits), the content of her testimony is basically the facts that were reported to the Director of Youth Protection in 2015. There is no precise information about what was done with the family during the two agreements on voluntary measures. She did not witness herself facts relevant for this hearing.

To support her request for a long term placement, she claims that the father has not taken steps to solve his substance abuse issues and that the mother, who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, cannot take care of her daughters because of her disease. [ 6 ] The father points out that he has not received any services from the Director of Youth Protection since January and that the only interaction was the Social Worker reminding him to go a treatment center whenever they bumped into each other unexpectedly in the community. He has a regular job and claims that he could not leave to go to a treatment center.

He is contemplating attending a treatment center in a near future. [ 7 ] The mother received the schizophrenia diagnosis about four years ago. She has been hospitalized a few times at Douglas Hospital for periods ranging from a few weeks to two to four months. She takes her medication, collaborates with the psychiatric follow- up, and meets with a caseworker in Town A on a regular basis. [ 8 ] The couple faces a certain instability of breakups and reconciliations. The mother decided, the day before the hearing, to end her relationship with the father. The mother works a few hours a week at the church.

She states that the father consumes marijuana on a daily basis and increased his alcohol intake between goose break and the end of June. He would have reduced his alcohol consumption since the beginning of July. [ 9 ] The paternal aunt, who is X and Y’s foster family, testifies that at goose break, the father was passed out when she went to their place to pick the children up after a visit. [ 10 ] The aunt also reports that the house is not clean. She agrees with the mother to say that the father is doing better in regard to his alcohol consumption since he would have reduced it.

She states that she is willing, available and interested to take care of her nieces until they reach the age of majority. [ 11 ] We know, from the Director’s file, that the children have been placed many times in the past: 2012: October 12 to October 22 nd , and from October 22 nd to November 5 th ; 2013: From January 22 to January 24; 2014: From July 5 th to July 9 th and from July 9 th to August 5 th ; 2014: From August 13 th to February 2015; 2015: From November 7 to November 11; 2015: From November 11 to December 10; [ 12 ] The Court is of the opinion that the security and development of both children are endangered pursuant to

section 38 (b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act : The substance consumption issues of the father, the instability of the couple, and the instability of the children themselves due to numerous placements are more than enough to come to this conclusion. [ 13 ] What should be the measures, taking into account the best interest of the children, their needs, the situation of the parents, and the fact that that to this day, the delays outlined in

section 91.1 (

a) of the law have been reached. [ 14 ] The three defense lawyers plead that there is a possibility of reintegration of the children with the parents in a short term period and that the services agreed upon have not been provided by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 15 ] The law does not establish what a “short term” period is. It depends on the situation, the age of the children, their needs, their development, their bond with their parents, and so on. Here, both children have a strong bond with their parents. They go to visit.

The youngest one, for her part, is of the opinion that she would be best off in a foster family and agrees with the recommendation of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 16 ] The fact is that the Court is obliged to say that the services were not provided. There are no service plans in the file. In addition to no written intervention plans, there is no evidence that any plan was followed in order to enable the parents to receive their children. It looks more like improvisation than planned actions.

A social follow-up is not only to remind the parents to take steps to solve their problems whenever they meet with the Social Worker, but to also work on their willingness to take these steps. Here, the parents

acknowledge their problems, so the first step for a change has already been taken. They have to be put in motion, and for that, a real follow-up with a plan is necessary in order to attain the goals established before. [ 17 ] The Court was not provided with information about the real situation of the mother: her capacity to answer to the needs of her children in spite of her disease. It is not of judicial knowledge that a person having this disease can or cannot fulfill their obligations towards their children.

On top of that, more certainly than not, the situation may vary from one person to another or from one period in their life to another. The Director of Youth Protection had the necessary tools to obtain this information as the agreements on voluntary measures provided an authorisation signed by both parents to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family. This was not done and the information was not put into evidence before the Court.

From the testimony of the caseworker, the Court can infer that she has no actual knowledge of the real situation of the mother regarding her capacity because she took for granted that a person presenting schizophrenia cannot take care of their children. The Court cannot take this for granted and evidence must be tendered in order to establish this fact. In which way does this disease impact the mother’s ability to take care of her children on a daily and permanent basis? In which way does this disease impact the security of the children given their age and level of development?

Are there risks of role reversal i.e. that the children act as parents to their own mother? What is the comprehension of the mother’s disease by the children? What is the chronology of the significant facts in regard of the mother’s schizophrenia: periods of hospitalization, periods of decompensation (if any), and evolution of her situation? [ 18 ] The Court is not satisfied with the services provided in order to achieve one of the goals of the law established by

section 4 of the Youth Protection Act : “Every decision made under this act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment”. [ 19 ]

Section 8 of the law provides that: “The child and the parents are entitled to receive, with continuity and in a personalized manner, health services and social services that are appropriate from a scientific, human, and social standpoint, taking into account the legislative and regulatory provisions governing the organization and operation of the institution providing those services, as well as its human, material, and financial resources…” [ 20 ] The Court does not have the evidence that adequate services were provided to the family. [ 21 ] The Court is of the opinion that a placement of nine months is necessary to really work with the parents in order to see if a reintegration can take place.

The father has to act diligently to attend a treatment center within the next weeks. The information about the mother in relation with her disease should be gathered by the Director of Youth Protection in order to adjust the intervention and to plan for the future. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are in danger pursuant to

section 38 (b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 24 ] ORDERS the placement of both children in a foster family for a period of eight months starting on July 27, 2017; [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of eight months; [ 26 ] ORDERS the mother to continue the follow-up with the psychiatrist and the therapist and to follow the recommendations of the professionals; [ 27 ] ORDERS that any access rights be encouraged and supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the frequency and modalities; [ 28 ] ORDERS the father to immediately take the necessary steps to attend a treatment center in order to solve his alcohol and drug related problems and to complete this therapy and abide by the recommendations of the professionals; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES any service provider to the family to share information with the Director of Youth Protection for a period of nine months; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures ordered. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Adelia Ferreira Counsel for the applicant M e Constantin Kiryakidis Counsel for the children M e Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother M e Michel Grenier Counsel for the father Date of hearing: July 27, 2017