r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 12569

Protection de la jeunesse — 152459 2015 QCCQ 12569 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004715-143 DATE: January 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] , 2014 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 for revision of a Court decision rendered on September 26, 2014 concerning X. [ 2 ] In virtue of the preceding judgment, the Court determines that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of serious risk of parental neglect and psychological ill-treatment.

The Court orders various measures of aid and counsel to the child and his family for one year, while maintaining him in the care of his mother. The father’s contacts are determined following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the mother is not able to assume the challenges of the care of her newborn child, justifying the revision of the previous order in view of his placement in a foster home for 6 months. [ 4 ] Although he receives service of the proceedings, the father is absent from the hearing.

In conjunction with the evidence demonstrating his lack of involvement in his son’s development, the Court proceeds in his absence. [ 5 ] Through her attorney, the mother consigns her admissions in the Court file and agrees with the orientation suggested by the Director. [ 6 ] The child’s attorney stipulates a legal mandate and, after considering the evidence, is in agreement with the conclusions, to the exception of the father’s access rights.

She submits that the father’s access rights should be conditional to his confirming his personal situation and availability. [ 7 ] Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Since the last order, the child remains with his mother at the [ center A ] shelter for young mothers. The situation evolves arduously.

Although there is a significant bond with X, the mother is regularly overwhelmed by her situation and has problems dealing with the structure of the resource. [ 9 ] On three occasions, the child is subject to emergency placements in foster care in order to offer respite to the mother. [ 10 ] After the second emergency placement, the mother picks up X on November 20 from the foster home and returns to [ center A ]. The next day she once again asks that the caseworker provide a placement for X, as she states her inability to stay in the resource.

[ 11 ] The mother leaves [ center A ] in an emotionally unstable state. She is of unknown whereabouts for approximately a week. When she makes contact, she clarifies that she is unable to deal with the structure of the resource. She wants to take some time to sort out her personal situation, while remaining active in her son’s life. [ 12 ] The mother is presently in a temporary living arrangement in an apartment. She takes steps to be able to eventually live independently and resume full-time care of her son.

She is awaiting mental health services and plans to pursue her studies. [ 13 ] The mother maintains visitation with X on a regular basis. She shows good parental abilities and is sensitive to her son’s needs. [ 14 ] At the date of the hearing, the father is of unknown address. Since his birth, the father participates to three supervised visits with his son, the last on September 3, 2014. He is consistently unavailable to the caseworker and since the end of November, he is of unreachable. [ 15 ] In early December, the father sees X and his mother at [area A] in Town A.

The mother calls for police intervention when the father becomes verbally aggressive and walks away with the baby in his stroller. He returns the child to the mother and leaves. [ 16 ] After taking into consideration the parties' admissions as well as the documentary evidence, the Court considers that the allegations in the proceeding are proven to its satisfaction and give rise to a revision of the previous order and the measures sought by the Director, save the issue of the father’s access rights. [ 17 ] In this regard, the Court retains the validity of the reasoning presented by the child’s attorney.

It is clear that there has been little bonding between X and his father, in view of the few contacts, the father’s decision to be generally absent from his life and to not benefit from the accompaniment of the Director of Youth Protection. Consequently, it is in X’s best interests that his father demonstrates an interest to stabilize his situation and prioritize his son’s needs, and this, before scheduling a calendar of access.

This reflects, in fact, the Director’s intentions as to these contacts. [ 18 ] Furthermore, the Court rejects the Director’s request that the supervision of the father’s access be withdrawn following mutual agreement between the parties. Although a pertinent measure in situations where the evidence demonstrates a clear path as to the evolution of contacts, such is not the case for X.

As of the present, there is a sombre prognosis of the father’s ability to mobilize sufficiently in the next 6 months to justify a withdrawal of supervision. [ 19 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion for revision of a Court order; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 22 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on September 26, 2014; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family chosen by Le Centre jeunesse A ; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the father reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures he applies in his own regard or in his child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be determinate following agreement between the parties; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] TAKES ACT of Director of Youth Protection’s intention to require meetings with the father in orders to evaluate his personal situation and implication towards his child and the intervention and this, before consenting to the establishment of supervised contacts; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 30 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Mrs. Catherine St-Yves Trainee for the Petitioner Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the mother Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the child

Date of hearing: January 9, 2015