2019 QCCQ 11450, 2019 QCCQ 11450

Protection de la jeunesse — 191853 2019 QCCQ 11450 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032058-174 DATE : March 11, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on March 11, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on May 22, 2018. [ 3 ] On November 22, 2018, the Tribunal extended, on a provisional basis, the child’s entrustment to her paternal grandmother’s care. [ 4 ] Up until this morning, the Director recommended that the child remain entrusted to her paternal grandmother’s foster family and that diverse support measures be ordered until her majority.

The day of the hearing, the Director amends the recommendations and asked for a nine months order. [ 5 ] The mother agrees with the Director’s amended recommendations. [ 6 ] The father agrees with the Director’s initial recommendations. [ 7 ] Following the hearing, the child’s attorney agrees with the Director’s amended plan and makes comments regarding the removal of the exercise of parental authority from the father and random drug testing.

Questions in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 9 ] What should be the order’s duration? [ 10 ] Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to impose random drug testing for the parents? [ 11 ] Should the Tribunal withdraw from the father his exercise of parental authority?

Context and Analysis [ 12 ] The child is thriving under the care of her paternal grandmother. Ms. C is recognized as the child’s foster family. [ 13 ] The child attends daycare on a daily basis. In mid-July 2018, the grandmother moved to a new dwelling. The child is exposed to three languages simultaneously and shows certain delays in her expressive language. [ 14 ] On February 18, 2019, the grandmother reported to the youth protection worker that the child had disclosed that her mother had touched her vagina and anus with her tongue and finger.

The child was brought to the A Hospital and was seen on two different occasions. Given the child’s expressive capacity, the signalement was received but not retained. Ms. C expressed that she still have doubts that something happened. She considers that, as the child’s guardian, she has to protect her granddaughter. [ 15 ] Both mother and grandmother have maintained a positive a supportive relationship with each other. [ 16 ] While incarcerated, the father has participated in therapeutic services. He reports that he maintains his sobriety.

He participates in bi-weekly telephone calls with the youth protection worker. His release from prison is scheduled for June 21, 2019. Following his release, he plans to reside in a half-way house and receive support from Foster Pavilion. He will be under a probation for an eight month period. He does not plan to reunite with the mother and wants to put his life together. He wishes to be reintroduced in his daughter’s life through supervised visits.

The father reports being in agreement to undergo random drug testing. [ 17 ] The father undertook the administrative steps to be recognized as the father of the child’s brother. [ 18 ] In April 2018, the mother graduated from the [Center A] mother/infant Program. She has since resided in a semi-supervised apartment with the child’s brother. The mother also agrees to undergo random drug testing. [ 19 ] The child visits with her mother on a regular basis.

These visits are described as positive and now includes sleepovers. [ 20 ] The mother had to deal with multiple health issues that impacted on her capacity to reintegrate the child to her care. She reports that this situation is now under control. [ 21 ] In October 2018, the mother recognized that, on her own, it was too difficult to care on a full time basis for the child and her brother. The mother was then asking that the child be entrusted to the paternal grandmother until her age of majority.

The father also expressed being in agreement for his daughter to be cared for by the paternal grandmother on a long term basis. [ 22 ] Since last fall, the mother’s position changed. She wants a reintegration process to be re-instated and to care for both of her children. She feels that with support, she will be able to take upon this responsibility. [ 23 ] The mother now plans to leave her supervised apartment in August and live in her own apartment. Her medical situation (physical and emotional) has been stabilized. She attends school and is followed in psychotherapy and in psychiatry.

She receives support from CALAC regarding issues of conjugal violence and sexual abuse. She is more confident in her abilities to care for the child and wishes to be reunited with her in a relatively short delay. [ 24 ] What should be the order’s duration? The notion of “maximum duration of placement” has been explained to the parents since the first placement and has been reached on July 6, 2018.

The law states that the Tribunal should make an order aimed at ensuring continuity or care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis, but that some exceptions may apply. [ 25 ] The first exception is that the child’s return to the parent is expected on a short term. This exception does not apply to our case as a 9 month duration is not a short delay when we put this in the perspective of a two year old child. [ 26 ] The other two exceptions apply. Serious reasons exists and the interest of the child requires that a shorter order be rendered.

The mother’s situation has changed sufficiently to give us good signs that she is able to care for both of her children with support. A progressive transfer from the grandmother to the mother’s care is in the interest of the child. The mother is not somebody new to the child. She maintained regular contacts and has sleepovers. The child’s transfer should not cause her any trauma, but the Director will have to respect her rhythm. The grandmother considers that Mrs. A likes her daughter. There is a positive link between themselves.

They help each other. [ 27 ] Consequently, the Tribunal will render a nine month order. [ 28 ] The Tribunal will not permit a reintegration.

Section 62 of the Youth Protection Act states that in the last two months of the placement order the Director can authorize, in certain conditions, a progressive reintegration. This does not mean that visits cannot be augmented but we are not talking about a full reintegration process. [ 29 ] The Court also agrees with the father’s attorney when he said it will be a lot for the mother to handle. [ 30 ] Today the mother mentions that it is what she wants but not long ago, it was too much for her. The mother has to process this and will have a few months to do so. We have to go step by step.

We have to see how the child reacts to her reintegration. What is the impact on her brother? How the mother is able to cope? What type of role will the father have when he goes out of jail? [ 31 ] As for the random drug testing, the Court will take judicial notice of both parents’ agreement to undergo such testing and consequently, orders them to take

part in such tests. It is their prerogative to change their mind. But they will have to remain alcohol and drug free. [ 32 ] As for the removal of parental authority,

article 91

n) of Youth Protection Act gives implicit authorization for the Tribunal to put a condition on such removal. A pattern was proven that when father is released from prison in the past, he is not always very forthcoming

with information. Even if today, father has the best intentions, he mentions being in agreement with this measure. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still in danger; [ 35 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on May 22, 2018; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the proximately foster home of her paternal grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her mother be determined upon agreement by the parties (the Director and the mother); [ 38 ] ORDERS a suspension of contact between the child and her father, until such time as he is no longer incarcerated and, subsequent to his release, ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents not be under the influence of any substances in the child’s presence; [ 40 ] TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents agree to undergo random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection and consequently, ORDERS the parents to attend such testing; [ 41 ] WITHDRAWS from the father the exercise of the attributes of parental authority with regards to health issues and travel if he cannot be reached within 24 hours and GRANTS the exercise of this authority solely to the mother; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to receive treatment for their substance abuse for as long as deemed necessary by the treating professionals; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive services for victims of conjugal violence; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that the father receive services for perpetrators of conjugal violence; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on March 27, 2019 /cd Mtre François Marchand Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Luce James Counsel for the child Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the mother Mtre Marc Morin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: March 11, 2019