2018 QCCQ 20715, 2018 QCCQ 20715

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811509 2018 QCCQ 20715 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-032885-170 DATE : October 3, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2013 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 26, 2017 entrusting the child to her father for a year with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 2 ] The applicant alleges that the mother’s situation has significantly improved since the prior order. She has collaborated closely with the Director as well as various other services in relation to her personal issues.

Although more time is required to ensure the durability of her progress, the Director is of the opinion that visits can be gradually normalised and extended. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the child remain in the care of her father with a social follow-up for a period of nine months. During this period of time, if the mother maintains her gains, the Director intends to remove supervision and to authorize overnight visits. [ 4 ] The mother admits all of the allegations and consents to the measures proposed including random drug testing.

She asks, however, for some assurances regarding regular and normalized contacts with her daughter and proposes a minimum frequency. [ 5 ] The father admits the majority of the allegations and consents to the measures proposed by the Director. He maintains, however, that supervision of contacts with the mother should be maintained as he has concerns regarding the mother’s situation. [ 6 ] The lawyer for the child supports the measures proposed by the Director, being of the opinion that they are in the child’s interest, and suggests a minimum frequency of contact as well.

The Situation [ 7 ] Since the prior judgment, the mother has made serious efforts to stabilize her lifestyle and to address her personal issues: - She has participated in the […] program A for substance abuse and has remained abstinent for an extended period of time; - She has participated in counselling at the […] Centre A to help her cope with her blindness and the accompanying limitations in caring for her children; - She has worked closely with an educator and has also sought the support of [Center A] to improve her parenting skills;

- She is no longer in a relationship with C although she has recently given birth to their child; - She is currently residing in a home provided by [Organization A], an organization that offers services and housing to victims of conjugal violence; - She has participated in a psychiatric evaluation the conclusions of which suggest that she has no parenting limitations despite being diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder; - She has been transparent and cooperative with the social worker assigned to the application of measures. [ 8 ] Visits between the child and her mother have been consistent and positive.

Recently, the social worker has begun to gradually allow periods of unsupervised contact during a structured activity in a safe environment. Her intention, if the situation continues to evolve in a positive manner, is to gradually decrease supervision with a view to extending visits to include overnights. [ 9 ] The social worker underlines that the mother continues to require support and monitoring, especially considering the recent addition of a baby to her family.

There are also concerns regarding the deterioration of her sight and the impact on her ability to parent effectively in stressful circumstances. [ 10 ] Moreover, the social worker maintains concerns regarding the mother’s ability to remain abstinent over the long term, considering the intensity of her substance abuse history and her past failed attempts at dealing with her issues on a permanent basis. That being said, there is no evidence of a relapse at this time. [ 11 ] The father has the support of the paternal grandmother who actively participates in caring for the child.

He struggles, however, with the frustration provoked by his conflicts with the mother. [ 12 ] Co-parenting remains a serious issue. The father is generally distrustful of the mother and tends to question the sincerity of her progress. He has concerns about potential contact with Mr. C as well as other members of the mother’s entourage. Although mediation has been offered, the father has not availed himself of this opportunity. Nevertheless, he expresses in court his willingness to take

part in such a process, as does the mother. The court encourages them to follow through. [ 13 ] This process is all the more vital since the social worker has noticed that the child is manifesting signs of a loyalty conflict. Although the child is doing well overall, the conflict between the parents is clearly impacting her emotional well-being. Analysis and Conclusion [ 14 ] Generally speaking, the intervention has been successful in assisting the mother with her personal issues.

That being said, the durability of the progress remains a legitimate concern and warrants the extension of the previous order. [ 15 ] Regarding the visits with the child, the Director is justified in acting prudently considering the mother’s history and the previous risks to which the child was exposed as a result of her decisions. That being said, the objective of working towards unsupervised and extended visits is legitimate. Moreover, its realization is reasonably foreseeable as demonstrated by the evidence of the mother’s commitment to improving her overall situation.

The child’s interest would best be served by a more normalized context. [ 16 ] The child has been developing well since the past order but a potential loyalty conflict is becoming apparent and needs to be addressed.

The Court invites the parents to reflect on the damaging impact of their conflict on the child and to collaborate sincerely with the measures proposed by the social worker on this subject. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 18 ] THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still endangered; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of her father; [ 22 ] ORDERS a prohibition of contact between C and the child; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child is not exposed to any substance abuse or violence; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from making disparaging remarks one about the other in the presence of the child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the DYP, including supervision if deemed necessary and ORDERS that minimally one visit per week be offered to the mother; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDUCIAL NOTICE that the Director intends to authorize overnight visits at the mother’s home if the situation continues to progress positively; [ 27 ] TAKING JUDUCIAL NOTICE of her consent to do so, ORDERS that the mother follow through with support services for substance abuse and follow the recommendations of the treating professionals; [ 28 ] TAKING JUDUCIAL NOTICE of her consent to do so, ORDERS that the mother submit to random drug testing as requested by the Director;

[ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow the recommendations of her psychiatric assessment and that she seeks psychotherapy; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDUCIAL NOTICE that the parents consent to participating in mediation in order to resolve their issues; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to receive services of a conjugal violence counsellor; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child receive certain health services namely art therapy; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On October 17, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. François Marchand Attorney for the D.Y.P. Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the child Richard Brunet Attorney for the mother Younes Ameur Attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 3, 2018 KO/lf