2017 QCCQ 14438, 2017 QCCQ 14438

Protection de la jeunesse — 176216 2017 QCCQ 14438 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000492-154 DATE: June 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2014 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 August 3, 2016, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present but not represented. She agrees with the measures suggested by the DYP and consents to the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author.

Counsel for the child also expresses his consent to the same effect. [ 3 ] Regarding the father, the DYP requests dispense to serve him the application, since he is untraceable. The DYP attempted to serve him the proceedings through a bailiff unsuccessfully. Moreover, the last conversation that the DYP worker had with the father, he mentioned that he did not have any intention to come in the area since there are warrants issued against him for his arrest in the province of Québec. [ 4 ] Furthermore, the mother testifies that she spoke with the father on June 4, 2017.

He told her that he did not have any intention to be present in court. For these reasons and for the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed. The Court will dispense the serving of this application to the father. [ 5 ] Since the last court order, the mother was incarcerated but was released on February 18, 2017. During that period she maintained regular contacts with the DYP and with the mother & child program at Portage, where she attended therapy for her addictions. [ 6 ] While she was in jail, she was able to benefit from visitation with her son and it went very well.

After her release she returned to her community in City A. But, she is still bound by a probation order and follows her conditions. Since then, she preserves a healthy lifestyle. Besides, she has been sober for the past eighteen months. [ 7 ] The mother completely turn her life around. She wants to provide for herself and her son a better life in order to have a positive future. It is not often that the Court notices parents overcoming their difficulties with great success, we may say. This mother did everything she had to do in order to have her child back and also to provide him with a better environment.

The court could acknowledge all the work the mother achieved to become the person she is today. She can be proud of her accomplishment. [ 8 ] For the moment, she is living with family members but she is looking for her own place to live with her son. She is planning to

go back, either to school or search for a suitable job. Indeed, she makes concrete projects for her future and does all the appropriate steps to reach her goals. One thing is clear she trying to go further to be a person in which her son can rely upon. [ 9 ] The mother collaborates and actively participates with the services. She is open to all the services purposed to her. [ 10 ] In the psychosocial report [1] written on May 16, 2017, the DYP delegate summarizes the state of the mother as follows: “Although, there have been many trial and tribulations, Ms. A was able to remain focused and grounded.

She reached out when she felt overwhelmed, she was very honest and humble with her feelings. There is a continuance need for guidance and support to be offered to Ms. A and her family, as the vigorous traumas Ms. A has undergone throughout her life that require a strengthened foundation of support.” [ 11 ] Even if her situation is going well the mother still needs support in order to ensure a continuance of smooth transition in regards of her son’s return home. Regarding her own present and past issues, she tries to resolve and put them behind her and start fresh. [ 12 ] The child is 2 years old.

He is doing well and has a normal development. He attends daycare and he is functioning well. [ 13 ] Concerning the father, he is not involved in his son’s life. There are many warrants for his arrest in the province of Quebec and also New Brunswick. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 15 ] DISPENSES the DYP to serve the application for revision and extension of order to the father; [ 16 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on August 3, 2016, in the present file; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother actively participate in a psychological assessment; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be determined following an agreement between the parties, including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measure intended to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until June 30, 2018; [ 24 ] 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 for a period ending June 30, 2018. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child A the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: June 7, 2017 Written judgment filed on June 22, 2017