2020 QCCQ 5847, 2020 QCCQ 5847

Protection de la jeunesse — 205238 2020 QCCQ 5847 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000474-180 DATE : August 3, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2007 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 February 24, 2020, in respect of the child in order to entrust him to his father. [ 2 ] At the hearing, only the father is present. The mother is absent, although the procedures have been notified to her . Both the father and the child agree with the conclusions suggested by the DYP. [ 3 ] Since the last judgment ordered, the family situation remains worrying.

The blended family does not seem to have cohesion and unity. There are often conflicts between siblings and between children, parent and step-parent. [ 4 ] Following the outbreak of the pandemic, the child stopped attending school as well as the rest of his siblings. This is not without causing a problem such as the exacerbation of conflicts within the family. A follow-up was put in place to help them manage this situation. [ 5 ] The mother does not get involved with her son nor with the DYP. The child feels rejected by the mother's lack of involvement.

As for the father, he is stressed in connection with the situation which prevails with his son, and he feels overwhelmed by all of his responsibilities, which are sometimes heavy to manage. However, he collaborates well the DYP, even if he omits or minimizes certain situations. During the present measure, he has to continue to work on his parental skill and make efforts to understand his son’s emotional needs. [ 6 ] The relationship between the child and his mother-in-law is not the most harmonious. He does not accept her, and he feels that he is not being treated the same as her children.

A meeting is organized within the family in order to improve their communication and their functioning in their family unit. [ 7 ] The child has attachment issues and feels often misunderstood. He demonstrates behavioral problems, notably being rude, swearing and not listening to instructions. In fact, he has ups and downs. He may behave well for a few days and then become disorganized. It is observed that the child is less engaged and does not want to attend meetings with the DYP, the psychologist or the

educator. The worker as well as his father tries to make him understand the importance of having a follow-up in his interest, but he refuses any professional help. [ 8 ] The dynamics within the couple and the family unit remain preoccupying, and we must remain vigilant. The child needs a secure, stable and loving environment in order to develop adequately. Although the father's environment is the desired environment for the child, the fact remains that work still has to be done by the later and improving the communication within this reconstituted family.

They still need assistance and services to help deal with all the problems arisen from time to time. [ 9 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduces, the application is well founded. Furthermore, these measures appear to be in the child’s best interest. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act; [ 12 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on February 24, 2020, in the present file; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined between the parties and that they be supervised as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is compromised; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents benefit from external rehabilitation services, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child receives the health and social services that are deemed necessary by his condition such as a psychological follow-up; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help for her personal difficulties; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until August 31, 2021; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present measure; [ 22 ] ORDERS to individuals covered by this order to comply. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the father Mrs. A (absent) the mother Written judgment filed on August 6, 2020.