2016 QCCQ 19614, 2016 QCCQ 19614

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610318 2016 QCCQ 19614 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-028890-143 Date: November 22, 2016 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 95- 95.1 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., C. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 22, 2016, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered by the undersigned, on February 1, 2016, whereby the now two year-old child, X , was entrusted to his mother’s care on the condition that she reside at a setting approved by the Director of Youth Protection with aid, counsel and assistance, for a period of seven months. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion for extension dated August 30, 2016, are as follows: 3.1. the mother and child are residing at the O3 Residential Program; 3.2. in April 2016, the father expressed being suicidal and threatened to cut his wrists with a knife; 3.3. the mother called the police and the father was found by police at a bus stop and was transported to the Montreal General Hospital and was released the same day; 3.4. the father reported that the reason for his actions were out of frustration; 3.5. the child was in the home at the time of the suicidal threats; 3.6. in early June 2016, following an incident with her neighbor, the mother was put on a probationary contract ending on September 30, 2016; 3.7. on September 2016, the mother has to leave the O3 Residential Program for the following reasons:

a) the mother’s minimal follow through with the goals that were set;

b) the mother did follow the rules of the program;

c) in July 2016, the mother did not attend the last appointment scheduled at the O3 program;

d) the issues of the parents’ relationship that have occurred in the home; 3.8. the father has not followed through with the recommended therapeutic interventions (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to his mother on the condition that she continue to reside at a setting approved by the Director of Youth Protection, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me De Vette, admitted all the alleged facts and consented to the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father could not be present for the hearing but was made aware of the recommendations and conveyed his consent to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Robillard, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibit D-4 as evidence: D-4: Court report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated November 10, 2016. [ 9 ] In

summary, the facts alleged in support of the motion are admitted and the parties acknowledge the need for the Director of Youth Protection’s ongoing involvement with the family. [ 10 ] As summarized in the Court report : Throughout the review period, Ms. A has been able to demonstrate that she cares deeply for her son, and that she is able to provide for his basic needs without difficulty. She is a loving and nurturing parent to X. However, at this time, there is a chance that Ms.

A will be asked to leave her apartment at the O3 Housing program due to not following through with the program requirements and poor decision making. There are concerns around stability, couple conflicts with both Ms. A and Mr. B. In addition, although Ms. A is able to care for X, there are some concerns about her overall judgment regarding the people she allows into her home and some decisions she has made. Mr. B also has a great deal of love for his son; however, he has yet to successfully complete any service that he has started since the initial DYP intervention.

He required police intervention regarding suicidal threats, and is not consistent with follow-up treatment. A second signalement was received regarding concerns that had brought the family into youth protection as recent as of August 2016 and a recent police check indicated that Mr. B has recent police involvement that remains of concern. Given this information, it will remain important for the DYP to remain involved with the family to ensure that X resides in a safe and stable home.

In addition, the DYP can continue to work with the family to provide supports and follow-up as needed to maintain the gains that have been made within the family. [2] [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, given the evidence and the consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the recommendations are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X , remain in danger under the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to his mother’s care on the condition that she reside at a setting approved by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by consent amongst all parties, including the Director of Youth Protection; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a parenting support/education group; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in individual counseling; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in individual counseling; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in couple counseling; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to any parental conflicts; [ 21 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out;

[ 23 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year. TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Sylvie Robillard Attorney for the child Me François De Vette Attorney for the mother TD/vl