r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 19349

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610163 2016 QCCQ 19349 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005046-167 DATE: December 13, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born […], 2014 Y , born […], 2007 Children ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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.). [ 1 ] On March 21, 2016, the Court renders a decision concerning the children X and Y, declaring that their security and development are in danger in reason of neglect and, for Y only, in reason of sexual abuse by her father. Concurrently, the Court declares that their sibling Z, is at a serious risk of neglect. [ 2 ] Rendering a common order for the three children, the Court maintains them in their maternal environment while applying various measures of aid and counsel for 9 months.

The Director of Youth Protection seeks the extension of the measures for an additional 9 months. [ 3 ] The father is absent from the hearing, despite having received service of the application. Furthermore, the evidence confirms that he is uninvolved in his children’s lives.

The Court proceeds in the children’s best interests. [ 4 ] The mother endorses the Director’s position, adding a request that the Court prohibit the father’s contacts with the children. [ 5 ] The attorney for the children, in virtue of her legal mandate, subscribes to the orientation recommended by the Director. [ 6 ] Analysis and decision [1] The children reside with their mother. Since August 2016, the mother’s partner integrates the family unit, which provides additional support for the rehabilitation process. [2] Their father resides in [Province A] and is absent from their lives.

He fails to respond to the Director’s communications. The mother is uncertain whether the father’s contacts with his children are structured by a court order. [3] The mother continues to struggle with mental health issues linked to anxiety and borderline personality disorder. She awaits the implementation of mental health services through Santé mentale adulte . [4] X and Z attend daycare regularly. [5] X’s behaviours can be challenging and his mother seeks help in decoding and responding to his needs. He has language delays for which the mother applies stimulation exercises. Improvements are observed.

[6] Y has academic difficulties and exhibits anxious behaviours (tics, self-harm be-haviours). The mother seeks immediate medical attention on two occasions in reason of her daughter’s behaviours, including what she describes as an anxiety attack. The child is presently awaiting services through Santé mentale jeunesse as well as IVAC . [ 7 ] The mother cooperates generally well with the intervention and undertakes the services suggested. [ 8 ] An educator accompanies the family on issues of routine, structure and discipline.

Although there are overall improvements as to the mother’s capacities to respond to her children’s individual needs, she requires continued accompaniment. [ 9 ] Y’s behaviours are especially challenging for the mother. Her anxiety contributes to the escalation of her interventions with her daughter, which can then become inappropriate.

The mother recognizes the need to modulate her reactions and continues to work on means of applying clear structure. [ 10 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the children’s best interests justify the extension of the protective measures, as recommended by the Director. [ 11 ] As to the issue of the children’s access to their father, his inaction as to the situation of endangerment (particularly the issue of sexual abuse) and lack of involvement are factors militating in favour of a prohibition. [ 12 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 15 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on March 21, 2016; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the children remain in their maternal environment; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or her children’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the children is in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the applications of the measures ordered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate and pursuit her follow-up in connection with her personal issues; [ 21 ] PROHIBITS contacts between Mr. B and the children; [ 22 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 9 months; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A for execution of the present judgment; __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the children Date of hearing: December 13, 2016