2019 QCCQ 16289, 2019 QCCQ 16289

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910773 2019 QCCQ 16289 COURT OF QUEBEC « YOUTH DIVISION » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 540-41-005730-196 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, Applicant and X, Born [...] 2010 Child and A B, Parents JUDGMENT Under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.) [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (the Director) petitions the tribunal with a motion for protection in the matter of the child X, 9 years old. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the child is in danger for many reasons.

First of all, because of the parent’s failure to take the necessary steps to ensure that the child receives a proper eduction. Secondly, because of their inapropriate reactions towards the child’s behaviours. Finally, because the child is exposed to the conflict of separation between them. [ 3 ] The child has an older sister, Y, who is also the subject of a motion for protection for the same reasons.

With the consent of all parties, the tribunal conducted a joint investigation for the two children. [ 4 ] The Director recommends, among other measures, that the child be kept into in her family environment and that a social follow up be provided for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The parents consent to the intervention of the Director for the above-mentioned reasons. They recognize the content of the

report and accept the proposed measures. They intend to work with the Director to put an end to the situation of compromission. [ 6 ] The attorney responsible for representing the child considers the intervention of the Director justified and the measures in the best interest of his young client. THE CONTEXT [ 7 ] The parents have been separeted since April 2018. However, they continued to live together until September of the same year, with the mother’s new spouse, who is the father’s brother. Mother gave birth to her third child at the end of [...] 2019. [ 8 ] The child lives mainly with the mother.

The contacts with the father are not regular. [ 9 ] The parents have not been in the good terms since their separation. [ 10 ] On January 29, 2019, the Director received a report concerning the child to the effect that the parents are failling to ensure the child proper education. For the year 2018-2019, the child missed 25 full days and 25 half days of school. Moreover, the homework and studies are not done properly. [ 11 ] Another concern about the child is that she shows signs of anxiety and it’s still not adressed by the parents.

It is reported that the child’s self stimulate herself and that behavior has been getting worse since January 2019. In that matter she can be inattentive in class to an extent where she deconcentrates classmates. [ 12 ] Also, the child often talks about adult subjects. [ 13 ] The tribunal notes that the Director received a similar report in April 2018. At that time, the file was closed because the mother had commited to a routine to help the child with her homework and to ensure that she was present at school every day. [ 14 ] At first, the mother minimised the problems within the family.

She justified the child’s absence from school because sometimes it is more convenient for her to keep her home. [ 15 ] It was difficult for the Director to get the father’s cooperation. He explained that he had worked to stabilize his personnal situation, so he was not present regularly for the child. However, his availability to receive the child has increased over time. [ 16 ] The parents recognize that the child has witnessed their conflicts since their separtion.

The child herself remembers events following the separation of her parents separation such as screams and altercations. [ 17 ] The position of the parents varies over time. One day they accept the Director’s intervention, and the next, they don’t. DECISION [ 18 ] The evidence reveals that the parents failed to ensure that the child receives a proper education. The child is described as very intelligent, with great potential. Because she has been missing so much school, she falls behind which is of great concerns. The situation is recurrent and she accumulated academic delays.

The parents need to be more involved with the school professionals in order to be better informed of the child’s difficulties and challenges. Also, they have to address the child’s anxiety problem as soon as possible. [ 19 ] The evidence also shows that the child is involved in the separation dispute between the parents, and this has an impact on the child’s development. [ 20 ] It is also crucial for the parents to improve their communication in the best interest of the child in order to prevent her from being implicated in any kind of conflict.

The fact that they both are interested and open to receive services for that matter suggest a positive perspective of the situation.

They have the ability to make changes and improvements and maintain them over time. [ 21 ] They now aknowlegde the impact of the situation on the child’s development and better understand the Director’s expectations. [ 22 ] The tribunal is convinced that the implication of the Director is necessary for the time period recommended in order to address the above concerns. [ 23 ] CONSEQUENTLY AND FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL : [ 24 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are in danger under paragraphs b) 1) iii) and

c) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS X to her family; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director on the measures they apply in their own regard; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents take an active

part in the application of all the measures ordered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents take the necessary steps to ensure the child’s schooling at all times, unless for a medical reason

approuved by a doctor; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents do not expose the child to their conflicts; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents do not expose the child to adult subjects and/or concerns; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take serious steps in order to develop their coparenting skills; [ 33 ] TAKE ACT that the parents are open to participate to information sessions on parenting after separation; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s family; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE, for a period of 12 months; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the DYP of the CISSS A for the enforcement of this order; November 27th, 2019 __________________________________ LISA LEROUX, J.C.Q.

This is the written and reasoned version of the oral judgment handed down on October 23, 2019 in accordance with

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . Mtre. Julie TASSÉ Counsel for the Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse Mtre. Hugues FOUCHER Counsel for the child A Mother not represented B Father not represented LL/hl