2019 QCCQ 19561, 2019 QCCQ 19561

Protection de la jeunesse — 198000 2019 QCCQ 19561 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 145-41-000603-198 DATE: October 11 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2013 Child -and- A -and- 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 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on April 5, 2019, in respect of the child in order to be entrusted to her paternal grandmother until October 31, 2020. Her siblings are also aimed by the same proceeding. [ 2 ] The DYP asks that another conclusion be added concerning the contacts between the father and the child be supervised if necessary. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and duly represented by their lawyer.

The mother consents with the measures as recommended by the DYP. The father also consents for most of the measures recommended by the DYP but asks that the length of it be reduced to six months. He also disagrees that the contact with his children be supervised. [ 4 ] The child is represented by a lawyer acting under a legal mandate, considering her young age. After going over all the evidence, she considers that the measures suggested by the DYP are in the best interest of the child. [ 5 ] On March 28, 2019, a judgment was rendered entrusting the child to her paternal grandmother.

At the time, the mother was residing in the [Country A]. She came back in the area at the end of August 2019. When she arrives, she contacted the DYP to take steps to get her children back and she agrees to submit herself to a parental capacity assessment. She seeks help to deal with her addiction problems, so she agrees to attend counselling as well as submit herself to random drug tests. [ 6 ] The mother had also an arrest warrant issued against her regarding breaches of probation. Therefore, she surrenders to the police in order to settle her cases in court.

Presently, she is detained in Town A detention center. She had no contact with her children since the involvement of the DYP. [ 7 ] During the last court, the father was incarcerated, which may explain the fact that no contact with him was planned. However, the evidence discloses that during his detention, the paternal grandfather visits him with the children for a period of 2 to 3 months on a weekly basis. When the father was transferred to the Town B Detention Center, the visits stopped but telephone contacts took place

between the father and the children. During his detention, he called the DYP to advise them of his intention to have the children entrusted to him. At that moment, he is informed that certain steps had to be done before considering it. Upon his release on October 2, 2019, he had about three visits with the children again without the DPY being advised.

However, the paternal grandfather is always present during all physical or telephone contact. [ 8 ] Basically the father only saw his children while he was in jail for a short period of time, not in the most suitable environment for the children and without the DYP being notified. The evidence is silent on the period in which these contacts take place when it begins and when it ends. In fact the children saw the father in a detention facility through a window and talk to him on a phone.

One thing remains, the father is never alone with his children and we cannot qualify them as a moment of quality considering the context and the place of where these visits occur. Of course, he sees them on his release from prison but at the paternal grandfather, where he also resides. [ 9 ] The father wants to get involved in the situation of his children and to take the necessary measures so that they are entrusted to him.

He is ready to submit himself to all the requests of the DYP either to the evaluations, counselling, and follow-ups as well as to the random drug tests. [ 10 ] The DYP consider that a measure of one year is sufficient in order to proceed to all the required assessment, make the necessary verification and to be assured of the real implication of the father on a long term basis.

If less time is needed, they will come back to court to revise the order. [ 11 ] The Court believes that time is an important factor since the child is getting more involved every day in her actual environment even if it is in the immediate family. The fact remains that the father must take his place rapidly, in doing so, a long period is not adequate in the circumstances, to verify the real involvement of the father. He must be able to mobilize quickly, so a shorter period is more suitable.

However a measure for 6 months, realistically, is not sufficient to proceed to all the assessment and to start the follows up to come. The Court considers that a delay of 8 months should be sufficient to see how it goes with the father.

Seeing the consent of the father given under oath to submit himself to different assessment, counselling and drugs testing, the Court will order it instead of recommend it. [ 12 ] Before entrusting the children to him, he has to demonstrate the seriousness of his involvement and the engagement, he took in court in regards of his collaboration with the DYP and his participation in the services offered to him. We cannot put the children in an unstable situation just to try, which is not in their best interest.

The Court considers that a delay of approximately 8 months should be sufficient to appreciate how it goes with the father. [ 13 ] Actually, the father has not seen the children for many months previous to his release. Practically, he has not been involved in their lives on a regular basis. He must act quickly and take the necessary steps in order that he could care for his children. In addition, he is aware that he has problems and must deal with them. Over the next few months, he will have to prove himself and make the appropriate choice for him, but mainly for his children.

He must also have an adequate living environment for his children who need stability and that neither have been taking care for. [ 14 ] X is 6 years old and lives with her paternal grandmother since March 28, 2019. Her grandmother provides her structure as well as stability. The latter is conscious of the child needs and collaborates with all the professionals. The child is doing very well in that environment and also in school. Therefore, we cannot put the child in a situation that could disrupt her stability and good functioning before knowing more about the level of involvement of the father.

Furthermore we know very little about his relationship with his children before his detention. [ 15 ] Regarding the request for supervision of the contacts between the father and children, the Court thinks it is legitimate in the situation and in the children’s best interest to do so. It has to be used if deemed necessary and to assure that everything goes well when these contacts take place. As previously mention, the father did not have much contacts with the children and was never alone with them.

Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency from the father as well as the paternal grandfather by not disclosing the visits done to the father while he was detained. Although there were no guidelines regarding contacts between the father and the children, it remains important information that should have been shared with the DYP. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 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 April 5, 2019; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her paternal grandmother, Mrs. C; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined following agreement between the parties, including their supervision, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her maternal grandmother, Mrs.

D be supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the father submit himself to psychological and addiction counselling; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the father submit himself to a psychological and parental capacity assessment; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the father submit to random drug test screenings;

[ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage herself in a psychological and addiction counselling; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage herself in a psychological and parental capacity assessment; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS the mother submit herself to random drug test screenings; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2020; [ 30 ] 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. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Ariane Cayer for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the mother Me Alexis Deschênes for the father Date of hearing: October 8, 2019 (in Town A)