2016 QCCQ 12605, 2016 QCCQ 12605

Protection de la jeunesse — 165542 2016 QCCQ 12605 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000392-150 DATE: August 1, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2008 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 Court is seized with an application for revision and extension of an order according to

section 95 of the Youth protection act. [ 2 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) is now asking the Court to revise and extend the previous order rendered on August 3, 2015. According to the application, the DYP asks that the child be entrusted to his parents. [ 3 ] His brother and sister are aimed by the same request. The parties agree to present common evidence. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the parents are present but unrepresented. They both agree with the measures suggested by the DYP and the deposit of the reports to value the testimony of their author.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent. [ 5 ] Since the last Court order, the situation of the parents has improved, but it is still fragile. Even so, the parents still struggle with their authority, structure at home and consistency. They try to apply some changes at home, but it does not last. [ 6 ] Furthermore, during the measures the parents did not follow completely the Court order. Even if they were not allowed to see each other in the presence of the children, they did.

The parents also lacked transparency with DYP in regards to there relationship by hiding that they were back together. [ 7 ] The father did not complete his follow-up regarding his personnel issues because he was working, but he intends to pursue it. The father seeks for help when needed. He also wishes to attend a couple therapy to address their issues and to learn to communicate more efficiently together. He also requested services of external educator following behavioural problem with one of the children.

The mother attends her follow-up meetings as suggested. [ 8 ] The psychosocial assessment [1] points out the matters that the parents have to work on to evolve and put an end to the situation of endangerment, as hereby described: “Consistency is a difficult aspects for them. Both parents need to develop better methods to structure their children, to protect their children from their own issues, to develop their parental authority and their coherence regarding their educational methods. They also

need to improve their proactivity regarding their parental tasks.” [ 9 ] However, both parents have sufficient parental capacities to take care of their children and to ensure their development. Generally, they collaborate with the DYP, and they give access to their respective homes. They still need support and assistance to continue to grow as parents and to create a stable environment for their children. [ 10 ] The child is eight years old. In school, he is functioning well. At the beginning of the measures, he received services from a psychologist to deal with the separation of his parents.

He improved, and the service is no longer necessary, because is doing very well. He requires a stable, secure and nurturing environment to develop adequately. [ 11 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 14 ] TO REVISE AND EXTEND the Court order rendered on August 3, 2015; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child is entrusted to his parents; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continues her personal follow-up with a worker specialized in conjugal violence; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the father undertakes personal follow-up concerning his violence issues; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents benefit from couple therapy. [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents do not use or demonstrate any violence in presence of the child; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents do not denigrate each other in the presence of the child; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from respite in foster care not exceeding five days per months, upon agreement of both parents; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively in all measures in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until June 30, 2017; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Lynn-Ann Smith for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father Written judgment filed on August 2, 2016