2011 QCCQ 10617, 2011 QCCQ 10617

Protection de la jeunesse — 112288 2011 QCCQ 10617 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-024462-111 DATE: May 31, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of: X Born on […], 2009 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 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 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 31, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the child declared compromised under

section 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act , as there is a serious risk that the mother does not meet the child’s basic needs. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child’s custody has been informally shared between the parents on a “one-week one-week” basis for approximately the last year; • There is a serious risk that the mother does not meet the child’s basic needs, more particularly: . information is to the effect that the mother uses drugs and alcohol in the presence of the child; . the mother has admitted to using cannabis, cocaine, speed and ecstasy; • The mother has failed to undergo random drug testing in that: . on March 18, 2011, she did not attend; . on March 25, 2011, she alleged going to the wrong location; . on April 8, 2011, the test was inconclusive as the mother did not follow the procedure for the test; • The mother has a history of mental instability, borderline personality disorder and depression, and she was diagnosed with an attention deficit disorder;

• The mother is not taking her medication for her depressive symptoms and has only recently resumed her medication for her attention deficit disorder. [ 4 ] The parties are asking the Court to render interim measures in the present file. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child remain entrusted to the parents, per the shared custody agreement. Furthermore, that the mother undergo a parental capacity assessment. [ 6 ] The mother admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion.

The mother says that she agrees to participate in a parental capacity assessment and to submit to random drug testing. [ 7 ] The father admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion and consents for interim measures to be ordered. [ 8 ] In

summary, the evidence clearly supports the Director of Youth Protection’s conclusion of the risk to which the child is exposed based on the fact alleged in the motion and the admissions of the parents. Consequently, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are compromised under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 9 ] In the present file, it is appropriate for interim measures to be ordered.

This period will allow the mother to undergo a parental capacity assessment and for the Director of Youth Protection to further assess the family situation. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 13 ] Considering the consent of the parties; [ 14 ] Considering that the mother has agreed to participate in a parenting capacity assessment; [ 15 ] THE COURT renders the following interim measures to be followed until the next court date: [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to the care of her parents; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is in shared custody, one week with the mother followed by one week with the father; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from using all illegal drugs while caring for the child; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother submit to random drug testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo random drug testing at the request of DYP; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child attend daycare on a regular basis; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the mother participate in a parenting capacity assessment and follow through with the recommendations of the assessment and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to participate in the assessment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to receive and share pertinent information with all treating professionals of the mother; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents collaborate with DYP and meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 24 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family until the next court date; [ 25 ] SETS the continuation of the case to September 26, 2011, at 9:30, room 2.06, without further notice to the parties; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed June 2, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.

AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Luce James (Counsel for the child) Me Paul Ménard (Counsel for the mother) Me Francis Cloutier (Counsel for the father) Date of hearing: May 31, 2011