2018 QCCQ 13106, 2018 QCCQ 13106

Protection de la jeunesse — 183598 2018 QCCQ 13106 JB5047 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division N° : 455-41-001110-170 DATE: January 10, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF THE CHILD: X Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, working at […] Applicant and A , […] Father and B , […] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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.

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting that the security and development of A be declared in danger for the motive of neglect on educational level. [ 2 ] Today the Director is recommending that X be maintained with his mother, with aid, counsel and assistance and other measures, the whole for a period of 9 months. [ 3 ] The parents agree with the recommended measures. [ 4 ] The mother denies a few allegations but admits that the situation of the child is compromised. [ 5 ] The father mentions to the court his intention to address Superior court to have a judgement for shared custody. [ 6 ] After hearing the evidence, the child’s counsel recommends to the court a shorter order because of the mother’s plan to move to City A by the end of the school year.

Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the security and development of the child in danger? In the affirmative, do the recommended measures answer the needs of the child and are they in his best interest?

Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The child is known to the Director, as it appears from the court file 455-41-00976-159. [ 9 ] At the time, the security and development of the child had been declared compromised because of neglect on educational level, as it appears form the judgment rendered by the Honourable judge Michel Durand, January 14 th 2016. [ 10 ] His development was lagging in terms of motion skills and communication.

He was not sufficiently stimulated at home. [ 11 ] Unfortunately, the child is stills showing particular needs regarding motor skills, social abilities and cognitive development. [ 12 ] The child used to attend daycare 5 days a week.

However, from January to July 2017 his attendance progressively decreased and his parents ultimately withdrew him from daycare for the rest of the summer. [ 13 ] By the end of August 2017, the child was returned to daycare 3 days a week and in October, the mother requested a 5 days attendance. [ 14 ] Attending daycare is fundamental to Jayden as he is under stimulated at home, is accumulating delays and is not reaching his developmental milestones. [ 15 ] The parents have separated in May 2017 after a 4 year relationship. [ 16 ] When the parents lived together, the father assumed the authority with the child as the mother was more lenient.

She claims to be more flexible and the father more strict. [ 17 ] The child behaviours can be difficult at home: he can oppose, or disrespect and insult his mother. [ 18 ] On September 4 th , 2017, the police intervened because of a quarrel between the parents. [ 19 ] Two marijuana plants were seized in the mother’s living room where they were accessible to children. [ 20 ] Both parents smoke marijuana on a regular basis. [ 21 ] The mother’s consumption before was about 3-4 times a day.

Right now she claims only having a joint before she goes to sleep and sometimes during the day when her children are not home or napping. She says she goes outside to smoke it. [ 22 ] The father’s consumption is regular. He claims he uses to manage is stress level. He does not use in the presence of the children. He would go outside and use only when the children are absent or sleeping. [ 23 ] He claims he does not consume alcohol in excess and has not use chemical drugs in more than 10 years. [ 24 ] The mother had pressed charges for assault against the father.

She has abandoned her complaint and the accusations were dropped in November 2017. [ 25 ] The mother is receiving services from the CLSC regarding stimulation and structure at homme. [ 26 ] She is also attending the Better Together group session. [ 27 ] The father has in fact turned around as he says he understands now how important it is for the child to attend daycare as he sees the progress he is making there. [ 28 ] The father also admits that he used to use inappropriate means to discipline the child but says he is now using the “stand in the corner” method and that it works. [ 29 ] Both parents claim they agree that they would benefit from the advice of an educator. [ 30 ] The parents are currently neighbours but this might change soon as the mother plans to move to City A. [ 31 ] She says she wants to be closer to her family and take some distance from the father. [ 32 ] But this move would involve X changing daycare and he needs stability and to attend regularly. [ 33 ] The Director has proven that there is a situation of educational neglect from the maternal home.

X’s needs are significant and despite noticed improvement, some delays are still present and need to be worked on. [ 34 ] There is also the fact that X was exposed to conjugal conflict and violence. This can affect his development and behaviour. [ 35 ] The mother is collaborating with all services involved in the child’s life and is willing to improve her parental skills. However, it seems it is very hard for her to apply the recommendations.

[ 36 ] She needs to be playing a stronger role disciplining and imposing rules to the child.

The father, who took alone that role before, will have to let her take this place. [ 37 ] Both parents will also have to make sur that marijuana use does not hamper their parental capacity. [ 38 ] The Court concludes that the recommended measures answer the child’s needs and respect his rights and interest. [ 39 ] However, the Court will grant a shorter order to allow the situation to be clarified in terms of the mother’s moving to City A and how the child is ensured of the means to continue to develop well. [ 40 ] The present judgement completes and confirms each and every observations that were made on the bench in presence of the parties.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application for protection; DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger in regards with neglect on educational level; ORDER that the child X remain in his maternal environment; TAKE NOTICE that the child spend weekends at his father’s and that the father intend to clarify legal custody issues in Superior Court; ORDER that the child attend a childcare establishment five day a week; ORDER that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; ORDER that both parents refrain from using marijuana while the child is in their care; ORDER that a person, working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until the June 30 th , 2018; ENTRUST the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. . ___________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. M e Louise Martel DYP’s counsel M e René Sévigny Children’s counsel M e Maryse Pinsonneault Mother’s counsel Me Érica Gosselin Father’s counsel Date of hearing: January 10, 2018

Motives signed and filed: February 15, 2018 File exhibits: D-2 to D-4