2018 QCCQ 11282, 2018 QCCQ 11282

Protection de la jeunesse — 181347 2018 QCCQ 11282 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000546-173 DATE: January 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2008 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 judgment rendered on June 7, 2017, in order to maintain the child in a foster family. Her brother is aimed by the same amended application. [ 2 ] At the beginning, the DYP asks to amend their recommendations to add a request for a psychological, addiction and parental capacity assessments for the mother. [ 3 ] Neither parent is present.

The mother, at her last appearance in Court, indicated her intention to contest the application and was present when the new court date was scheduled and repeated more than once. Regarding the father, even though he was duly served on December 1, 2017, he did not show up in Court on the date mentioned, on the notice of hearing of the application. [ 4 ] The child is also absent but duly represented by a lawyer. Her counsel expresses her consent to the filling of the report to value the testimony of its author.

She also agrees with the amended recommendations of the DYP. [ 5 ] Since the last judgment, it seems that not much has changed in the mother’s situation. After reading the court order on June 7, 2017, and the evidence submitted by the DYP, we cannot come to another conclusion. [ 6 ] When the file was first called in Court, on December 6, 2017, we can easily observe that the mother is not in a normal state. She is incoherent, disconnected and confused.

The Court notices that the mother’s behavior is the same as described in the psychosocial report and in the testimony of the social worker, [social worker 1]. [ 7 ] The mother always says the same thing to the DYP that she will get involved but when it is time to take action she does not move. It seems that she has been saying that for a long, even at the last court hearing on June 7, 2017, as hereby described: “ [21] However, the mother is willing to work on her issues and collaborated with the services. She wants to do whatever it takes for her children to be returned to her home.

In order to achieve that, she has to demonstrate consistency and structure in the household and certainly improve her parenting skills. In fact, she will have to be more preoccupied in the future with her children’s needs.”

[ 8 ] In fact, nothing seems to improve regarding the mother, who did not take any steps to progress in her parenting skills. She also fails to demonstrate consistency and structure in her environment. [ 9 ] The contacts between the child and the mother showed, on a few occasions, some inconsistencies but generally, the visits go well. [ 10 ] The mother refuses any services regarding counselling or a detox, on the pretext that she can do it on her own. However, some services were already put in place to help the mother through the A family services, namely, a therapist.

Still, often she is late or misses a lot of appointments with the therapist. When the mother finally attends a meeting, she does not cooperate and denies any responsibility for her gestures. [ 11 ] On two occasions within the same day, the DYP went to the mother’s residence. Both times she looked intoxicated and had a slurred speech. The first time, she was planning on going with her daughter to a “pow wow” event in that state. She denies everything by explaining that it is caused by her medication.

She has a tendency to blame everyone and everything. [ 12 ] As mention previously, the mother denies her addictions or any other issues she could have. Moreover, she has a new man in her life who drinks and feels that it is not a problem. They were both informed that this situation will not be helpful for the mother in regards of the children. [ 13 ] The child is 9 years old and she functions well in school as well as in the foster family. She indicates being comfortable in her foster family.

Even if, she wishes to be with her mother, she is anxious that the situation repeats itself and the mother goes back to her old ways such as sleeping a lot. Furthermore, when living with the mother, she and her brother use to do all the household chores. To conclude, the child expresses to her lawyer, her desire to live, for the time being with her current foster family. [ 14 ] The child needs a secure, stable and healthy environment in order to develop adequately.

Currently, the mother cannot provide such surroundings. [ 15 ] Concerning the mother, it is obvious that she has issues and the recommendations added concerning the assessment proposed by the DYP seems appropriate under the circumstances. [ 16 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, considering the evidence, the admissions and the consents of the parties, the application is well founded. The recommended measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until July 31, 2018; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents are determined following agreement between the parties; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in a psychological evaluation; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to work on her personal well-being with a psychologist as long as deemed necessary by the psychologist; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in an addiction assessment; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a parental capacity assessment; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a psychological assessment; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in anger management; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues and addictions; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents benefit from external educator services; [ 29 ] ORDERS that neither parent talk negatively about the other in the presence of the children; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until July 31, 2018; [ 32 ] 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 Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: January 15, 2018