2020 QCCQ 4587, 2020 QCCQ 4587

Protection de la jeunesse — 203656 2020 QCCQ 4587 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 550-41-002279-162 DATE: July 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X Child A In their capacity as mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 75, 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . Alleging that the mother’s instability is impacting the child’s attendance and progress at school, the Director is seeking to revise and extend the decision rendered by this Court on January 3 rd , 2019, whereby the child was entrusted to his mother. [ 2 ] The Director initially recommends that the child be entrusted to Mr. B and Mrs. C, the parents of the mother’s partner. [ 3 ] On December 10 th , 2019, the Court recognised the paternal grandparents, Mr. D and Mrs.

E, as persons of interest for the purpose of the upcoming hearing of the motion for revision and extension. [ 4 ] Since then, the Director’s recommendations have changed. The Director now recommends that X be entrusted to his paternal grandparents for a period of one year and that contacts with his mother be determined by agreement between the parties. [ 5 ] The mother disagrees with the new recommendations. She argues that her situation is now more stable and that her son should be entrusted back to her.

In the event that the Court considers that it’s too early for such a return, she asks that her son remain under the care of Mr. B and Mrs. C until he can be returned under her care. [ 6 ] X made it clear to the Court that his first choice is to return under his mother’s care. If that’s not possible, his second choice is to remain under the care of Mr. B and Mrs. C while having regular access to his mother and his paternal grandparents.

Finally, his third choice is to be entrusted to his grandparents. [ 7 ] The main issue before this Court is therefore to determine the appropriate living environment for the child in the current circumstances. More specifically, the Court must determine whether the child should be returned to his mother, maintained where he is or entrusted to his paternal grandparents.

ANALYSIS [ 8 ] In order to better understand the issues at play, it is useful to provide a brief overview of the evolution of the situation, particularly as it relates to the main decisions rendered by this Court. [ 9 ] Although the child was provisionally entrusted to his grandmother in June 2016, he was subsequently moved to a foster family because of significant conflicts between the mother and the grandparents. Indeed, the mother resented the paternal grandparents, who suspected her of being responsible for their son’s death.

[ 10 ] On October 28 th , 2016, the Court declared the child’s security and development to be endangered as a result of several difficulties encountered in the maternal environment, including psychological ill-treatment (exposure to conflicts between the mother and her former partner), unreasonable methods of upbringing and a serious risk of negligence in light of the mother’s fragile mental health. The Court then entrusted the child to a foster family for a period of six months and ordered that contacts with his mother be determined by agreement between the parties.

The Court also ordered that the contacts between the child and his paternal grandparents be supervised in view of the continuing tensions between the grandparents and the mother and of the child’s reactions following the contacts. [ 11 ] On September 29 th , 2017, the mother having stabilized her situation, the Court ordered that the child be maintained in a foster family for a period of three months, with a gradual reintegration into his mother’s environment starting immediately.

As to the paternal grandparents, although the Court noted the important role they played in their grandson’s life as well as their genuine concern for his wellbeing, it was deemed necessary that the contacts remain supervised for a period of three months to avoid disrupting the child’s reintegration into his mother’s environment. [ 12 ] On January 3 rd , 2019, the undersigned ordered that the child be entrusted to his mother, noting that she had made progress over the past two years in order to address the motives which had initially led to the Director’s involvement.

At the time, a new concern was raised, however, regarding the mother’s ability to ensure that the child is attending school on a regular basis. As to the contacts between the child and his paternal grandparents, it was ordered that they be determined by agreement between the parties or, absent of such agreement, every other Sunday for five hours. A. Evolution of the situation [ 13 ] The evidence reveals that the mother faced several difficulties since the last ruling. Having lost her apartment in July 2019, the mother temporarily found herself without a place of her own.

She moved from place to place, staying with friends. [ 14 ] The child’s school attendance suffers. The evidence reveals that X often goes to bed late and has trouble getting up in the morning and waking his mother up. As a result, he is often late for school. The mother’s collaboration with school authorities is also lacking. [ 15 ] On July 31 st , 2019, this Court entrusted the child to Mr. B and Mrs. C during the proceedings, with whom he had already been living for three weeks. The child remains under their care to this day. X is thriving under their care and he has grown much attached to them.

He is now attending an English school and getting high marks. Mr. B treats him like his own, his wife as well. [ 16 ] The mother and her partner have now stabilized their housing situation. Since February 2020, they have been staying in a new home, which they share with a long-time family friend. The place is large enough to accommodate X, who has his own bedroom. The apartment is located five minutes away from the house of Mr. B and Mrs. C. [ 17 ] The mother gave birth to a baby girl in early April 2020. She, the father and the baby spent a few weeks at Mr. B and Mrs.

C’s home shortly after the baby was born, at the Director’s suggestion. This allowed them to spend time with X on a daily basis. When the time came to return to their home, X was distraught to see them go and not be allowed to join them. [ 18 ] At present, X sees his mother three to four times a week, including for sleepovers. The visits are said to be going very well. [ 19 ] With the exception of the complications created as a result of the pandemic, X also visits his paternal grandparents on a regular basis, particularly on Sundays, where he accompanies them to Church.

The bond between them is strong and X quite enjoys the time spent with his grandparents and other members of his extended family. The mother is more amenable to allowing X to visit them and she says she does not wish to stand in the way of their relationship. The Director agrees that there is no longer a need for the social practitioner to be involved in terms of organising the visits. [ 20 ] That is not to say that the relationship between the grandparents and the mother is devoid of tension. It appears that much of the past hardship as yet to be discussed, let alone resolved.

The grandmother assures that she doesn’t say anything derogatory about the mother in front of X. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests he is well aware of the tensions and that he is not be completely at ease to talk about his mother or Mr. B and Mrs. C when in the company of his grandparents. [ 21 ] The grandparents would very much welcome him under their care, as this has been their wish for quite some time.

They would be willing to take him in permanently if the need arises and if the mother is unable to take him back. [ 22 ] The reason behind the change in the Director’s recommendations is due to the fact that the Director does not really envision returning the child under his mother’s care. Although the proposed duration is for one year, the plan is to work find another permanent home for X. In the Director’s view, the grandparents represent a better long-term solution than Mr. B and Mrs. C. [ 23 ] The Director is concerned that Mr. B and Mrs.

C’s commitment may waiver in the event that the relationship between the mother and their son comes to an end. There is, however, no evidence that the couple’s relationship is unstable or otherwise in jeopardy. They have been together for more than two years and they have recently had a child. Furthermore, Mr.

B, who is recognised as a foster family by the Director, has made it clear during the hearing that he is willing to take care of X as long as needed, and that his commitment will stand regardless of his son’s relationship with the mother: “ It’s about the child’s wellbeing; it has nothing to do with who the parents are” , he says. B. To whom should the child be entrusted? [ 24 ] To answer the main question relevant to this case and therefore determine its outcome, it’s important to bear in mind the following key principles found in the Youth Protection Act : 2.2.

The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents.

2.3. Any intervention in respect of a child and the child’s parents under this Act (

a) must be designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of a situation in which the security or the development of the child is in danger; and (

b) must, if the circumstances are appropriate, favour the means that allow the child and the child’s parents to take an active

part in making decisions and choosing measures that concern them. Every person, body or institution having responsibilities under this Act towards a child and the child’s parents must encourage the participation of the child and the parents, and the involvement of the community. The parents must, whenever possible, take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to and prevent the recurrence of the situation in which the security or development of their child is in danger. 3. Decisions made under this Act must be in the interest of the child and respect his rights. In addition to the moral, intellectual, emotional and material needs of the child, his age, health, personality and family environment and the other aspects of his situation must be taken into account. In the case of a Native child, the preservation of the child’s cultural identity must also be taken into account. 4.

Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible.

Moreover, the parents’ involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities. If, in the interest of the child, returning the child to the family is impossible, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis.

A decision made under the second or third paragraph regarding a Native child must aim at entrusting the child to an alternative living environment capable of preserving his cultural identity, by giving preference to a member of his extended family or his community or nation. [ 25 ] The first question one must ask in this situation is whether it is possible to return the child to his mother, bearing in mind the provision of

section 4 of the Act. [ 26 ] As noted in the previous ruling, the mother has addressed most if not all of the issues which led to the Director becoming involved in the first place. There are no longer any concerns in relation to either physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence or the mother’s mental health issues.

Rather, the last ruling revealed a new concern, this one dealing with the mother’s difficulty in ensuring that the child is attending school on a regular basis. [ 27 ] Indeed, this is one of the reasons why the child was removed from the mother’s environment during the current proceedings, the other being that the mother lost her apartment and had no stable place to stay. While the housing issue has now been resolved, the mother’s ability to ensure that X attends school regularly remains in question. In accordance with subsection 2.3(

b) of the Act, the current measures must be aimed at addressing that issue. [ 28 ] The mother has yet to undertake the recommended course to improve her parental skills. She has a hard time explaining why X missed so much school or why she doesn’t attend any of the school meetings. The fact that the child is now attending English school may explain in part the fact that he is now thriving academically, but it also speaks to the fact that he now has a proper routine and is no longer missing school or arriving late. [ 29 ] Needless to say, the mother has work to do.

She must make the needed adjustments and establish and maintain a healthy routine so X can continue to thrive while under her care. The mother suggests that Mr. B could continue to drive X to and from school when he’s back under her care. That may well be the case, but it is her responsibility to ensure that he goes to bed at a reasonable and that he gets up on time.

With some organisation on her part and with the help and support of the Director’s staff and others around her, it is hoped that the mother can meet that challenge so that X’s can reintegrate her home. [ 30 ] The Court agrees with the suggestion put forth by the mother and the child’s counsel that a short measure of 4 months is appropriate to allow the mother to make the necessary adjustments.

Frequent sleepovers at the mother’s place should be planned, both before and after the return to school in September, to allow the mother to implement an appropriate routine and to verify that it’s working. [ 31 ] Until then, it is not in the child’s interest that he be moved. He is doing very well under the care of Mr. B and his wife, to whom he has grown attached. This environment also offers the best chance of success in terms of preparing the child’s return under the mother’s care. [ 32 ] The paternal grandparents clearly adore their grandson and genuinely wish the best for him.

While their desire for him to be entrusted to them is both understandable and laudable, concerns remain that this solution may negatively impact the relationship between the child and his mother. [ 33 ] THEREFORE THE COURT:

[ 34 ] GRANTS the motion in part; [ 35 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered on January 3 rd , 2019; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child remain endangered; [ 37 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following protection measures for a period of four months:

a) That the child be entrusted to Mr. B and Mrs. C;

b) That contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties;

c) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her mother, including with a view to put in place an appropriate routine;

d) That the child attend school on a regular basis;

e) That the mother collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection in the elaboration and implementation of the intervention plan;

f) That the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she is applying to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of the child; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive services in order to improve her parenting skills; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. Signed on July 8, 2020 __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. Mtre. Laura Normandin Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre.

Marie-Christine Fournier Counsel for the child Mtre. Manon Guitard Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 29, 2020.