2017 QCCQ 8554, 2017 QCCQ 8554

Protection de la jeunesse — 173450 2017 QCCQ 8554 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] Youth Division NO: 650-41-002746-176 DATE : May 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE AUBRY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Respondent child and [SOCIAL WORKER 1], a person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection Applicant and A Respondent mother ______________________________________________________________________ RULING ON APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION ( YPA, s. 38 and 75) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine ( YPA s. 11.2, 11.2.1, and 135). [ 1 ] Before the Court is an application for protection in the matter of X, born [...], 2012. [ 2 ] His alleged father, Mr. B, was absent at the hearing, but a letter from him addressed to the Court was filed in his absence. [ 3 ] Y’s younger brother, X, born [...], 2013, is also the subject of an application for protection. Y’s father is Mr. C, and he was present at the hearing. [ 4 ] Until October 2016, the mother and her two sons lived in [province A].

On October 15, 2016, the mother moved to Québec with X and Y, specifically to City A, on the [region A]. [ 5 ] The mother lives with a partner who is currently serving a suspended sentence for drug trafficking.

[ 6 ] The two children were the subject of a report to the Québec Director of Youth Protection from the child protection service in [province A]. [ 7 ] The [province A] child protection service has apparently been involved with the family since 2012. [ 8 ] The [province A] child protection service reported that both children had significant language delays, that they had received medical evaluations, and that they needed to be followed. [ 9 ] The [province A] child protection service also reported that the mother was regularly consuming marijuana. [ 10 ] Mr. [Social Worker 2], human relations agent, was mandated by the Director of Youth Protection to investigate both children’s situation. [ 11 ] At the hearing of May 2, 2017 Mr. [Social Worker 2] testified that he had observed, first of all, that both children have significant language delays and flagrant overall delays.

In his view, there was no need to be a specialist to observe this. [ 12 ] Assessments by a speech-language pathologist, a nutritionist, an occupational therapist, and a psychologist, performed in City B, [province A], all concluded that both children were in need of stimulation. Y and X need rapid, intensive intervention owing to their young age. [ 13 ] Mr. [Social Worker 2] testified that he had suggested to the mother that the children attend daycare, and that she refused this proposal.

He also encouraged the mother to take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to obtain Québec health insurance cards for the children, which had not yet been done even though the mother had lived in Québec for more than six months. [ 14 ] Since the mother has not obtained health insurance cards for her sons, they cannot obtain services to help them with their general and linguistic delays. [ 15 ] The mother testified at the hearing. [ 16 ] The mother stated that she moved to City A on October 15, 2016.

She explained that she moved because of the cost of living, which she stated was lower in Québec than in [province A]. [ 17 ] She acknowledged that she consumes one to two grams of marijuana per weekend.

She has not had a test since 2013. [ 18 ] The mother also stated that she had not had any help in filling out the forms to obtain health insurance cards for her children. [ 19 ] When asked about her children’s language delays, the mother stated that the delay is normal, and that everyone in her family has started speaking late. [ 20 ] In cross-examination, the mother admitted that she smokes marijuana, but she indicated that she does so away from her home and not in the presence of her sons.

She states that she went to medical appointments with her children, but she could not prove that she had attended appointments other than assessments in December 2016 and a pediatric appointment in April 2017. [ 21 ] In the circumstances, the Director of Youth Protection requests that Y be entrusted to his alleged father, Mr. B, who lives in [province A]. The proposed measure is for a period of twelve months. [ 22 ] Mr.

B’s home environment was evaluated by Mr. [Social Worker 3], a social worker with the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development of [province A], as attested to by a document filed at the hearing, on consent, to serve as his testimony. [ 23 ] Mr. [Social Worker 3] provided the following opinion regarding Mr. B’s involvement in X’s life: “[ENGLISH IN ORIGINAL] B has verbalized his desire to provide full time care to X and feels that he would have no problem meeting his needs.

B has been significantly involved in his son’s life and I would consider him to have taken on the primary responsibility of parenting X in his son’s life within the past 6 months. B has been successful in providing child support for his son.” [ 24 ] Mr. B was absent at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. However, a letter by Mr. B is in the court file, in which he indicates his consent to receive full-time custody of X. [ 25 ] With regard to filiation, X’s alleged father is not legally recognized on his birth certificate, according to the information obtained at the hearing.

A copy of X’s birth certificate is in the Court file, the original having been seen by the Court, and it indicates that the father of the child is “[ENGLISH IN ORIGINAL] not stated.” [ 26 ] In addition to a declaration by Mr. B and the mother’s acknowledgement that Mr. B is X’s biological father, a DNA test performed in 2013 is in the file, the results of which are as follows: “[ENGLISH IN ORIGINAL] Based on appropriate statistical calculations (given below) and a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, it is considered practically proven that B is the true biological father of X.”

[ 27 ] The Court file also contains a ruling of the Supreme Court A, delivered in 2013, in which the Court ruled that Mr.

B must pay child support for the child X: “[ENGLISH IN ORIGINAL] The Respondent, B shall pay to the Applicant, A for support of the child, X born [...], 2012, the sum of […] commencing December 1st, 2013 and continuing on the 1st day of the each month thereafter.” [ 28 ] As to whether the children’s situation is compromised, after having analyzed the testimony of the mother and the case worker, the assessments that have been performed, and the presence of an obvious language delay in the children, the Court concludes that the situation of the children X and Y has been compromised, and that they require specialized services. [ 29 ] The fact that the mother has not obtained health insurance cards for Y and X more than six months after moving to Québec is sufficient reason to declare the safety and development of both children to be compromised pursuant to the Youth Protection Act, as the children are not receiving any of the services they have been demonstrated to need. [ 30 ] The mother’s substance use also compromises the situation of both children. [ 31 ] At the May 2, 2017 hearing, this Court decided to provisionally grant Mr.

B custody of X, and that the mother would have access to her son only on days on which the boy has no appointments. The Court maintains this conclusion. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 32 ] GRANTS the present application for protection ; [ 33 ] DECLARES the safety and development of the child are compromised ; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to Mr. B ; [ 35 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that access to the child is being agreed upon consensually between the mother and Mr.

B and that they will continue in this way for the duration of this measure, a period of twelve months ; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the mother not enjoy access when appointments for the child are planned in [province A] ; [ 37 ] ORDERS the mother and Mr.

B to report regularly to the Director of Youth Protection regarding the measures they are taking to end the compromised situation ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or organization provide aid, counsel, and assistance to the child and his family for a period of twelve months ; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his state ; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the clerk of the Court of Québec Youth Division to send a copy of this decision to Mr.

B ; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this order. __________________________________ NATHALIE AUBRY, J.C.Q.

M e Linda Turgeon Counsel for the applicant M e Pierre Paradis Counsel for the respondent child M e Andréanne Daoust Counsel for the respondent mother Hearing date : May 2, 2017