r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 14063

Protection de la jeunesse — 153189 2015 QCCQ 14063 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004715-143 DATE: August 3, 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 extension of a Court decision rendered on January 9, 2015 concerning X. [ 2 ] In virtue of the preceding judgment, the Court revises protective measures in place in reason of a situation of serious risk of parental neglect and psychological ill-treatment, in virtue of a decision rendered on September 26, 2014.

Within a six month order, the Court entrusts the child to foster care and provides contacts with his parents, with his mother following mutual agreement and under supervision with his father. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the child’s best interests dictate an extension of the protective measures, in as the parent’s personal situations remain unstable, as is their involvement. [ 4 ] Both parents are absent at the Court hearing. The Court dispenses service to the father, in view of the evidence to the effect that he is of unknown address and not involved in his son’s life.

The mother receives service of the motion and advises the caseworker of her agreement to the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 5 ] The child’s attorney stipulates a legal mandate and, after considering the evidence, is in agreement with the conclusions. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [ 7 ] Since the last judgment, X continues to evolve positively in foster care. [ 8 ] The mother still struggles with her personal issues.

Her living arrangements are unclear and she staggers from one place to another. [ 9 ] Despite services and accompaniment being in place, the mother’s motivation is lacking and impedes her from making the changes required to stabilize her situation on all levels and this, although she states repeatedly to the Director that her goal is to find employment and an apartment for herself and X. [ 10 ] Initially, X visits his mother from Thursday to Sunday at the great aunt and uncle’s apartment. Overall, the mother has a good relationship with her son and demonstrates sensitivity to his needs.

She continues to show potential in her parenting skills. [ 11 ] The state of the parent’s relationship is unclear.

[ 12 ] In May, the Director learns that the mother is allowing the father to have access to X and that this issue is the source of an ongoing conflict with the aunt and uncle. The police intervene at the apartment because the father is violent towards the mother (X is present). He is presently under warrant in relation to this event. [ 13 ] Following this event and the mother’s aggressive behaviours, the aunt and uncle state to no longer being able to manage the contacts and ask that they occur elsewhere.

As of that time, the visitations are held at the Director’s office. [ 14 ] On June 12 th , the mother shows up with stitches over one eye and states that the father is responsible for the injury, having punched her in the head during a recent contact together. [ 15 ] The mother maintains regular visits with her son despite her personal difficulties, testifying to her ongoing objectives to remain a significant part of his life.

Notwithstanding, the evidence demonstrates that she has consistently made choices that have put her son in peril and leave him witness to conflict, which makes it now necessary to structure their contacts in order to ensure that X develop in a strife-free environment. [ 16 ] There is little change in the father’s involvement. His only communications with the caseworker are a few telephone messages, wherein he fails to leave his coordinates.

His last supervised contact with X is in September 2014, except for the visitation the mother permits without the Director’s knowledge or consent. [ 17 ] Both parents are living a marginal existence which is not consistent with assuming the needs of a young child.

Although services are put in place since X’s birth to shoulder the parents as to their parental responsibilities, the evidence demonstrates that there is a continued deterioration of their respective roles, particularly as concerns the mother. [ 18 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are still in danger, while endorsing the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of his best interests. [ 19 ] Furthermore, the Court calculates that during the next period of measures, the maximum delays of placement provided for by the Youth Protection Act will be attained, and cites (our underlining): 91.1.

If the tribunal orders a foster care measure under subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 91, the total period of the foster care may not exceed (a) 12 months if the child is under two years of age on the date the order is made, (b) 18 months if the child is from two to five years of age on the date the order is made, or (c) 24 months if the child is six years of age or over on the date the order is made. When determining the duration of foster care, the tribunal must take into account the duration of any foster care measure applied to the same situation in an agreement on voluntary measures referred to in subparagraph j of the first paragraph of

section 54, as well as the duration of any prior foster care measure it ordered under the first paragraph. It may also take into account any prior period during which the child was placed or provided with foster care under this Act. If the security or development of the child is still in danger at the expiry of the periods specified in the first paragraph, the tribunal must make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis.

However, the tribunal may disregard the periods specified in the first paragraph if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family in the short term, if the interest of the child requires it or for serious reasons, such as failure to provide the services agreed upon.

At any time during a period specified in the first paragraph, if the security or development of the child is still in danger, the tribunal may make an order aimed at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 20 ] The Director confirms that on June 1, 2015, a Life Project meeting is held and the process towards determining the most appropriate long-term recommendation for X is underway. [ 21 ] Although it is conceivable that the parent's respective situations evolve, the evidence, in conjunction with the period of placement to date, justify that the Director move forward with the elaboration of a permanency plan, and the undersigned takes act of this intention as corresponding to X’s best interests.

[ 22 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] 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 Johanne Leduc Attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 3, 2015