2017 QCCQ 8553, 2017 QCCQ 8553

Protection de la jeunesse — 173449 2017 QCCQ 8553 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] Youth Division NO: 650-41-002745-178 DATE: May 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE NATHALIE AUBRY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Respondent child and [SOCIAL WORKER 1], a person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection Applicant and A Respondent mother and B Respondent father ______________________________________________________________________ RULING ON APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION ( YPA, s. 38 and 75) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine ( YPA s. 11.2, 11.2.1, and 135). [ 1 ] Before the Court is an application for protection in the matter of X, born [...], 2013. [ 2 ] X’s father is Mr. B, and he was present at the hearing. [ 3 ] X’s elder brother, Y, born [...], 2012, is also the subject of an application for protection. His alleged father, Mr. C, was absent at the hearing, but a letter from him addressed to the Court was filed in his absence. [ 4 ] Until October 2016, the mother and her two sons lived in [province A].

On October 15, 2016, the mother moved to Québec with X and Y, specifically to City A, on the [region A]. [ 5 ] The mother lives with a partner who is currently serving a suspended sentence for drug trafficking. [ 6 ] The two children were the subject of a report to the Québec Director of Youth Protection from the child protection service in [province A]. [ 7 ] The [province A] child protection service has apparently been involved with the family since 2012. [ 8 ] The [province A] child protection service reported that both children had significant language delays, that they had received

medical evaluations, and that they needed to be followed. [ 9 ] The [province A] child protection service also reported that the mother was regularly consuming marijuana. [ 10 ] Mr. [Social Worker 2], human relations agent, was mandated by the Director of Youth Protection to investigate both children’s situation. [ 11 ] At the hearing of May 2, 2017 Mr. [Social Worker 2] testified that he had observed, first of all, that both children have significant language delays and flagrant overall delays.

In his view, there was no need to be a specialist to observe this. [ 12 ] Assessments by a speech-language pathologist, a nutritionist, an occupational therapist, and a psychologist, performed in City B, [province A], all concluded that both children were in need of stimulation. X and Y need rapid, intensive intervention owing to their young age. [ 13 ] Mr. [Social Worker 2] testified that he had suggested to the mother that the children attend daycare, and that she refused this proposal.

He also encouraged the mother to take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to obtain Québec health insurance cards for the children, which had not yet been done even though the mother had lived in Québec for more than six months. [ 14 ] Since the mother has not obtained health insurance cards for her sons, they cannot obtain services to help them with their general and linguistic delays. [ 15 ] The mother testified at the hearing. [ 16 ] The mother stated that she moved to City A on October 15, 2016.

She explained that she moved because of the cost of living, which she stated was lower in Québec than in [province A]. [ 17 ] She acknowledged that she consumes one to two grams of marijuana per weekend.

She has not had a test since 2013. [ 18 ] The mother also stated that she had not had any help in filling out the forms to obtain health insurance cards for her children. [ 19 ] When asked about her children’s language delays, the mother stated that the delay is normal, and that everyone in her family has started speaking late. [ 20 ] In cross-examination, the mother admitted that she smokes marijuana, but she indicated that she does so away from her home and not in the presence of her sons.

She states that she went to medical appointments with her children, but she could not prove that she had attended appointments other than assessments in December 2016 and a pediatric appointment in April 2017. [ 21 ] In the circumstances, the Director of Youth Protection requests that X be entrusted to his father, Mr. B, who lives in [province A].

The proposed measure is for a period of twelve months. [ 22 ] As to whether the children’s situation is compromised, after having analyzed the testimony of the mother and the case worker, the assessments that have been performed, and the presence of an obvious language delay in the children, the Court concludes that the situation of the children X and Y has been compromised, and that they require specialized services. [ 23 ] The fact that the mother has not obtained health insurance cards for X and Y more than six months after moving to Québec is sufficient reason to declare the safety and development of both children to be compromised pursuant to the Youth Protection Act, as the children are not receiving any of the services they have been demonstrated to need. [ 24 ] The mother’s substance use also compromises the situation of both children. [ 25 ] X’s father, Mr.

B, was present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. [ 26 ] Mr. B testified, and stated that he was prepared to take charge of his son X. [ 27 ] At present, the father’s work

schedule has him working twenty-one days in a row, followed by seven days off. He wants to keep his job, and accordingly X would be cared for by a third party for three weeks. [ 28 ] At the May 2, 2017 hearing, this Court decided to provisionally grant the father access to his son from May 9, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., to May 16, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., a period that the father has off from work. [ 29 ] The home environment of the third person to whom the father wants to entrust X when he is working for three weeks in a row has not been assessed.

As a result, the Court cannot conclude that it would be preferable for the child not to be in the mother’s home. [ 30 ] Also, this will be a short-term measure in order to observe whether the mother has made the necessary efforts to ensure that X will receive more stimulation and that his language development will improved. If this is not the case, a foster placement could be considered. [ 31 ] If, as the father suggests, he changes his

schedule to shorten his work periods, the child’s stay with him will be lengthened accordingly. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 32 ] GRANTS the present application for protection ;

[ 33 ] DECLARES the safety and development of the child are compromised ; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to his mother, Ms. A ; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child X stay with his father, Mr. B, during each of Mr.

B’s periods off of work ; [ 36 ] ORDERS the father to advise the case worker of the dates and times of his access rights, with 48 hours’ notice ; [ 37 ] ORDERS the parents to report regularly to the Director of Youth Protection regarding the measures they are taking to end the compromised situation ; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or organization provide aid, counsel, and assistance to the child and his family for a period of four months ; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the child receive all health care services required by his state ; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the child attend a daycare centre when he is with his mother ; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this order. __________________________________ NATHALIE AUBRY, J.C.Q.

M e Linda Turgeon Counsel for the applicant M e Pierre Paradis Counsel for the respondent child M e Andréanne Daoust Counsel for the respondent mother Respondent father present, not represented by counsel Hearing date : May 2, 2017