2012 QCCQ 17279, 2012 QCCQ 17279

Protection de la jeunesse — 126785 2012 QCCQ 17279 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N o : 640-41-001389-110 DATE: May 31, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD : X Born on […], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in CITY A (Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in CITY A (Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in CITY A (Quebec), district A; Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) submits to the Court a motion for revision of a decision rendered on draft agreement on November 30, 2011 by Justice Nancy McKenna in which the Court entrusted X to a foster family for a period of six (6) months. [ 2 ] Today, the Director requests that X be entrusted to a foster home for an additional period of six (6) months in order to prepare a life plan for him. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the father is present with his attorney.

He agrees with the recommendations made by the Director. He read the medical report recently produced about X's health and understands that something did not go well when the child was under the care of the mother and aunt. [ 4 ] As for the father, he will be out of jail on October 30, 2012. [ 5 ] A six (6) months placement leaves him with only 22 days to prove he is able to recover X's care, he says. He would rather agree with the first recommendations asking for a seven (7) months period.

This would have given him an extra month, he says, to prove he has changed. [ 6 ] As for the mother, she disagrees with the recommendations. She would also rather agree with the first recommendations asking for a seven (7) months foster home period with a possible reintegration with her after four (4) months. [ 7 ] The attorney for the child, after hearing the evidence, adopts the same position as the parents.

Update of the situation since November 30, 2011 [ 8 ] The mother lives in City A with the father's extended family while the father is detained. [ 9 ] Over the months the mother has learned to understand how the conjugal violence affected her family. Although the mother states she does not wish to be a victim of conjugal violence anymore, she is unable to say whether she will go back with the father or not.

It will depend if he has changed, she says. [ 10 ] The psychological evaluation made on January 24, 2012 makes correlations between the mother's low self-esteem and the conjugal violence she went through with the father. This has to be worked out. [ 11 ] As for the mother's parenting skills, the psychologist does not have any concerns with the mother's parenting skills as such. However, the mother did not show any willingness to take care of X at the time of the assessment.

She said she never wanted to have a second child and it was the father who wanted to have two children. [ 12 ] In the father's absence, the mother develops her parenting skills and makes such remarkable progress that Y, their oldest son, is now back with her. [ 13 ] The mother receives a lot of support from the father's extended family. [ 14 ] As for the father, he has been in jail for conjugal violence since May 2011. [ 15 ] He has anger management problems and he consumes drugs on a regular basis. [ 16 ] At first, the father was detained in A Detention Center where he only wanted to do his time.

In A, he did not benefit from any programs concerning drug abuse, conjugal violence or anger management. [ 17 ] However, while detained, the father maintains regular contacts with his social worker, [social worker 2]. Over their many conversations on the phone, the father starts to realize that he has gone too far in trying to control the mother and that this affected the mother and the children. [ 18 ] Around February 2012, the father is transferred to the Centre de detention B at his request.

The father says there is too much drugs in A and he gets into fights there. [ 19 ] But the Centre de detention B does not offer English programs to help him solve his problems. [ 20 ] Today, he asks to be transferred to the C Detention Center where he could benefit from English social programs he is now ready to follow. [ 21 ] The father says he wants to be a good father to his children when he will be released from detention. [ 22 ] As for the child, in November 2011, X is entrusted to his biological grandmother C in City B. X is often sick. The grandmother brings him to nursing when necessary.

In March 2012, X is diagnosed with pneumonia and an ear infection for which he is given medication. [ 23 ] In early January 2012, the parents take the decision to give X to his grandmother C by way of traditional adoption. [ 24 ] At the end of January 2012, the grandmother's boyfriend, Mr.

D is released from prison and comes back to live with her. [ 25 ] Up until then and even during the foster family assessment, the grandmother had denied having a boyfriend in prison, always redirecting the social worker's concerns towards the father's imprisonment and stating there was a misunderstanding in the situation. [ 26 ] On March 30, 2012, the social worker receives a report stating that the grandmother is intoxicated and did not pick up X at daycare. [ 27 ] The child is immediately entrusted to a foster family as no family members are ready to take the child that night. [ 28 ] The following morning, when the grandmother meets the social worker, he makes it clear that the situation is not acceptable.

The situation being unique and considering the ongoing process for traditional adoption, the grandmother is left with a fair warning. [ 29 ] On April 2, 2012, the social worker receives a second report stating that the grandmother is still intoxicated in the presence of the child. [ 30 ] Later that day, the social worker is informed by the A Regional Police Force that the grandmother's boyfriend, Mr.

D, has a past of conjugal violence and sexual assault and that he is on the National Sex Offender Registry but failed to register himself in City B. [ 31 ] On April 4, 2012, the grandmother is requested to sign a contract with the social worker stipulating that she will remain sober in the presence of the child and that she will not put the child in contact with Mr.

D. [ 32 ] The same night, the social worker receives a third report stating that the grandmother is intoxicated again in the presence of the child. [ 33 ] The child is immediately removed from the care of the grandmother. [ 34 ] On April 5, the child is brought to nursing as he is coughing abnormally. The grandmother had not done the appropriate

medical follow-up for the child's pneumonia. X is still ill. The child is prescribed Ventolin puffers, clapping and nasal showers of salt water. [ 35 ] A week later, the child's situation deteriorates and he is diagnosed with a probable inflammation of the airways, bronchiolitis and a possible pneumonia relapse. [ 36 ] X responds well to the treatment, and his situation improves rapidly. [ 37 ] When the parents are informed of the child's situation, they decide to interrupt the traditional adoption process.

They want X back with them and the mother asks to regain custody of X right away. [ 38 ] The social worker refuses to do so. Besides the fact that the placement was coming to an end only on May 30, the social worker explains to the mother that X has not seen her since December 2011, almost 5 months. She is also of the opinion that the mother's desire to care for this child is questionable. [ 39 ] On April 25, the child is entrusted to his paternal aunt, E, until the next Court hearing

schedule on May 22. The mother lives with this aunt so she has the opportunity to be with X and care for him. [ 40 ] In order to meet X's health needs, the aunt receives a specific and detailed medical training. [ 41 ] A week later, X is found with important breathing difficulties again.

When the home educator comes to the aunt's house to verify how the child is doing, the child is breathing very fast, his lips are quivering, his forefront is burning hot and his skin tone is greyish. [ 42 ] The home worker asks the aunt and the mother for how long X has been feeling this way and both said he started feeling like this the previous day at around five o'clock, so for the last 21 hours. They had thought of bringing the child to the hospital but had not done so, they said. [ 43 ] The child is immediately brought to the emergency room and placed on an oxygen machine right away by the medical staff.

The child being brought two hours later, he could have suffered serious bodily harm and even die due to his medical distress. [ 44 ] During the child's hospitalization (May 3 to May 8), the mother's collaboration with the nurses is irregular and often inappropriate.

Though the mother testifies that she is holding the child properly while giving the bottle and respecting advices, the nurses note that she is holding the child ineffectively and is playing with her iPad or her "Bingo game" while the child is crying instead of comforting him, as suggested. [ 45 ] The nurses have to ask several times for the mother to give medication, change diapers and give a bath. She is slow to take action and seemed more interested by her games. [ 46 ] The nurses also observe that the mother is showing little attachment to the child. She is not holding the child in her arms.

She is turning her head when nursing staff is telling her to hold her baby and not let him cry alone. The mother is sleeping while the child is playing alone in his bed. [ 47 ] When the child is ready to leave the hospital, Dr. Geneviève Boivin insists that the child be sent in a secure environment with a caregiver able to ask for medical help when the situation would require it. [ 48 ] On May 11, 2012, a F finally accepts to take care of X for a short period. These foster parents are well known to the Director and are reliable persons who can meet X's specific needs.

The foster mother received the medical training at the hospital before taking care of X. [ 49 ] Following these new facts, the social worker modifies her recommendations from a seven months foster home period including a reintegration with the mother after four months to a six months foster home in order to prepare a life plan for the child. [ 50 ] The social worker is asked why a life plan should be developed now for X. [ 51 ] First, the social worker still questions the mother's interest for X. The mother did not want this child. It was the father's decision to have a second one, not hers.

And this lack of interest shows from the facts observed since X is born. [ 52 ] The mother never visited X during the many months he was entrusted to his grandmother in view of his adoption. And at the hospital, nursing staff observed very little signs of attachment between the mother and the child. With the psychologist, she also presented no interest in X. [ 53 ] As for the remarkable parenting skills the mother has developed in the last months allowing Y to be entrusted back to his mother, the social worker admits that the mother has surprisingly improved her skills.

But she immediately adds that X is a different child than Y. [ 54 ] X is a vulnerable baby with specific needs. He almost died when the mother and the aunt had him under their care because they did not provide him with the proper health care. [ 55 ] The fact that the mother does not worry more about his child's health is an illustration of her very mitigated concern for X. The mother plays with her iPad while the baby cries for comfort. She talks with the aunt while the baby is breathing fast, lacking air. [ 56 ] X's story is different from Y's. Y has a bond with her mother and they are reciprocally attached.

Y is older and does not have the very demanding needs of a vulnerable baby, she says.

[ 57 ] As for the father, the social worker explains that he did not take any steps to change and solve his problems. [ 58 ] The father went to detention with the idea of doing his time, she says. He did not ask to participate in any program that were available in English in the Centre de detention A where he was first detained. [ 59 ] Over the months and with the social worker's help, the father started to realize that he might need to benefit from programs in order to solve his anger management problems and his drugs consumption problem.

But for the moment, he is still in a French detention center where the English programs are no longer available. [ 60 ] The social worker says that all she can hope for is that the father still can be transferred in another detention center where he will be provided with the programs he needs. [ 61 ] In between, the social workers is left with the father's recent recognition of his problems to decide what is best for X.

As at now, even if the father were to start his treatment today, it would take the father at least 12 months to be able to represent a permanent option for his son, believes the social worker. [ 62 ] There is too much to do for the time that X can wait, she says. [ 63 ] For these reasons, the social worker concludes that it is time for this child to be provided with a family that will meet his needs now and on a permanent basis. [ 64 ] When the mother testifies, she seems tired and sad. While requesting to have the reintegration of the child with her, the mother adds that she would need help to do it.

She says: «If I am not the only one to take care of that child, I can . » Analysis and applicable measures [ 65 ] The mother has clearly made some progress. She was able to recover custody of her oldest son, Y, and this is a big achievement. [ 66 ] As for X, the situation presents itself differently. [ 67 ] The mother has not shown the same interest for X since he was born as she has shown for her first child. [ 68 ] The mother wanted X to be adopted. She did not see him for many months. [ 69 ] The mother admits not being capable of taking care of the child alone and needing assistance.

But even with the aunt's assistance recently, it was close to be dramatic for the child.

The mother did not show the expected concerns for X's health and he almost died. [ 70 ] Besides, once at the hospital, the nursing staff observed the same disinterest on many occasions and in different ways. [ 71 ] The mother presents a mitigated interest towards X while the child needs her undivided interest at his vulnerable age. [ 72 ] And with the assistance of a soon-to-be released father, without the father having benefited from services to control his anger and stop consuming drugs, and without the mother building a stronger self-esteem, the child would not be in a secure environment. [ 73 ] There is too much to do in a very short period and the legal delays are already passed.

The Court is requested by Law to think of what could be a permanent life plan for the child. [ 74 ] If in the next six months the situation were to change: the mother having improved her self-esteem and her capacity to resist going back to conjugal violence, the father being treated for his problems, and the child still having the capacity to bond with them, the Court is not excluding the parents from the life project for the child, but the prognosis remains very reserved. [ 75 ] As for the contacts, with the evidence as presented, and because of the vulnerability of the child, and taking in consideration his specific needs which the mother was unable to meet in a recent past, the Court will order that the contacts be supervised. [ 76 ] For the time being, the Court believes that to give a stable environment to the child while developing a life plan for him in the next six months represents his best interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the present petition; REVISES the decision rendered on November 30, 2011 by Justice Nancy McKenna; DECLARES that the security and development of X are still in danger; ENTRUSTS X to a foster family for a period of six (6) months in order to develop a life plan for him; ORDERS that the contacts between X and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection in terms of conditions, durations, frequency and degree of supervision; ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and his parents for a period of six (6) months ; ENTRUSTS the situation of A to the Director of Youth Protection A for the measures to be carried out;

ORDERS that the police collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. M e Gabriel Gaudreault Attorney for the D.Y.P M e Jean-Francis Bonnette Attorney for the children M e Angèle Tommasel Attorney of the mother M e Sarah Plamondon Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 22, 2012