2020 QCCQ 14286, 2020 QCCQ 14286

Protection de la jeunesse — 20546 2020 QCCQ 14286 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000598-182 DATE: January 20, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2017 Child -and- A -and- 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on November 7, 2018, in order to entrust the child to her parents. Her sister is aimed by the same proceedings and a joint hearing is held. [ 2 ] Both parents share the same position, they mostly agree with the alleged facts of the demand even though they denied as written some paragraphs.

Despite that, they agree with the recommendations of the DYP and the filing of the reports to value testimony of their authors. [ 3 ] Regarding the child, she is represented by a lawyer. The latter expressed some concerns about the parents’ issues regarding drugs, which seem not to be part of their past. The fact that a few random drug tests came back positive is worrisome. Especially, since they cannot explain why. They completely denied taking any drug, at least voluntarily.

The child’s lawyer suggests that we should wait a little longer before entrusting her to the parents, notably because they do not currently have any follow-up. [ 4 ] In the last court order rendered on November 2018, the child was entrusted to her paternal grandmother mainly because of the parents’ addiction problem. At the time, the conflict between the mother and the paternal grandmother was also a problem.

However, what emerged from the evidence, it is when the parents are in good shape, they are able to provide to the child an adequate structure and supervision. [ 5 ] Since this judgment, the situation has definitely improved. A lot of positive things can be observed regarding the parents. Nevertheless, some concerns are still present. Throughout the measure, the parents had contacts with the child. On December 2018, sleepovers were put in place at the parents’ residence and everything went well.

Over the months, the visits were increased and the child reacted positively. [ 6 ] The parent’s show good parental capacities and parenting skills. The parents as well as the paternal grandmother participate with the child’s appointments and in the application of the professional’s recommendations. The situation of domestic violence present in the last measure is resolved, but still they wish to get support when difficulties occur. [ 7 ] Even though, the parents have serious addiction issues, they went through a detoxification program and attended their appointment with the doctor regarding that matter.

They had a follow-up from December 2018 to August 2019 with a social worker in

the addiction program, but they did not attend all the meetings. According to the latter (social worker), it does not mean that they are not committed to it. There were reasons for their absences. Sadly, they are still on a waiting list for a new social service. The parents participate in drug screening tests where some results are positive and sometimes unexplainable, since they denied taking any substances. The father doubts the results since he admits taking cannabis regularly and it does not show in the test.

However, the last one done on December 2019, came back negative. [ 8 ] Concerning the paternal grandmother, some tension is still presents between her and the parents and but mostly with the mother. The problem is that the child witnessed those disagreements between them. However, in the child’s best interest, they all have to work together to improve their relationship. Even if the mother said that she will do so, which she had already stated at the last hearing, as mentioned in the judgment, but obviously the situation remained the same. It is not sufficient to say it, but she has to act on it.

Hopefully this time, some efforts will be put into it from all the parties. [ 9 ] Y is 4 years old and she has particular needs. At the beginning of her placement she had a hard time to adapt and had emotional issues. She showed frequent opposition the rules and was upset when an adult disagreed with want she wanted. The child tries to control her environment. At times, she hit, pushed or screamed at her paternal grandmother while upset. She has a lot of tantrums and needs to be reassured. The child attends daycare and over the months her attendance increased and now she attends it full time.

The child’s problematic behaviour tends to decrease in the past month. [ 10 ] X is 2 years old and like her sister it was hard for her to adapt when entrusted to the paternal grandmother. She needed to be reassured and supported by the adult. Nevertheless, her behaviour is less problematic than her sister and she goes to the same daycare on a full-time basis. [ 11 ] Both children are stressed during transition between different environments such as daycare, the parent’s home or paternal grandmother’s home. They are anxious when they have to go from one place to another.

In these instances, a lot of work and methods are needed to appease them through that. An external educator is involved to help the family. The relation is better between their grandmother and parents. The children need support to develop adequately and to overcome their unsteady early childhood. [ 12 ] That being said what is the appropriate measure for the child and in her best interest?

Of course, the Court shares the fears expressed by the child’s lawyer, however, the decision has to be based on the evidence submitted, which demonstrates that, for the duration of the DYP’s involvement with the parents, despite the negative drug tests, their behaviour or attitude towards their children was very adequate. [ 13 ] Undeniably, the situation remains fragile and requires constant surveillance of this family by the DYP. The parents will have to pursue their follow-up regarding their drug addictions, which ceased, following the departure of their worker and not because they refused to submit to it.

This follow-up, although their participation was not consistent, considering the number of missed appointments, but at least they have one and are willing to continue. From now on, the parents will have to be more assiduous in their follow-up in order to maintain their sobriety and be present with the children at all times. [ 14 ] The child needs a secure, stable, loving, consistent, secure and healthy environment in order to develop adequately.

At this point, seeing what has been done by the parents in order to reclaim the custody of the child, as well as the positive observation made by the DYP concerning them, the Court believes that the child should be entrusted to them even if risk remains. That is why the DYP still must be involved to support the family, to help them and get the services required for their needs. [ 15 ] Furthermore, we cannot set aside the motivation, implication, mobilization and determination demonstrated by the parents, since the last measure, it is reassuring and that is also the DYP’s position.

Also, the fact that everyone agrees that the paternal grandmother will stay involved, to a certain point, with her grandchildren as well their parents are comforting. She intends to help them as much as possible. Their common goal is to work all together with the DYP for the best interest of both children. [ 16 ] The parents still have to continue to collaborate and work with the DYP to avoid that the situation goes back to the way it was, if that were the case, it could have serious impacts on the children.

That is not what we wish for them, to the contrary, we are hoping for the best, and this, for many years to come. During the measure, the DYP will have to keep a close eye on the situation, to ensure that the child is safe, and the parents continue on this good path. [ 17 ] After hearing the testimonies and reading all the documentary evidence which demonstrate that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances the evidence presented, the admissions as well as the consent of the parents, the application is well founded.

The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 18 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of the order; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 20 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on November 7, 2018; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her parents; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child attend daycare on a full-time basis; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child receives health care and social services required to her condition, particularly a pediatrician follow-up; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents apply the recommendations of the professionals involved in the child’s situation;

[ 25 ] ORDER that the contact with the child and her paternal grandmother be maintained; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random screening tests for drugs asked by the DYP; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue their different follow-ups related to their personal difficulties, particularly a substance addiction follow-up and a psychosocial follow-up and that they respect all the appointments given to them; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents and the child benefit from the services of an external educator, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until November 30, 2020; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Ariane Cayer for the child Me Ann-Chloé Boudreau for the mother B the father Date of hearing: January 10, 2020