2021 QCCQ 16004, 2021 QCCQ 16004

Protection de la jeunesse — 217767 2021 QCCQ 16004 JB5484 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF TOWN OF [...] [...] « Youth Division » N os : 460-41-002033-207 460-41-002034-205 DATE : November 26, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE : CATHERINE BROUSSEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN : X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2017 -and- [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection, working at [...]. Applicant -and- A B Children’s parents ______________________________________________________________________

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A COURT ORDER (section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La

Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents. Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J.). Introduction [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is requesting a revision of a Court order rendered on December 3, 2020, by Judge Pascale Berardino in the situation of Y (4 years old) and X (3 years old). [ 2 ] As protective measures, the Tribunal entrusted the children to their maternal grandmother Ms.

C and authorized, in the children’s favour, supervised contacts with their parents, according to the modalities set by the Director.

The Tribunal also authorized the possibility of lifting the supervision according to the evolution of the situation and ordered a social follow-up for a period of six (6) months. [ 3 ] Today, the Director asks the Tribunal to declare that the security and the development of the children Y and X are still in danger for the same motives, serious risk of neglect (mother’s mental health issue and domestic violence) and physical neglect. [ 4 ] Because of new facts alleged, the Director recommends : - To entrust the children to a kinship foster family, namely the kinship foster family of C; - To authorize parents-children supervised contacts, upon modalities and frequency determined upon agreement between the parties; - To authorize the lifting of the supervision if the situation allows it; - To take judicial notice of the Director’s intention to clarify a permanent life project during this measure, excluding the return with the parents; - And other measures and a psychosocial follow-up for a period of six (6) months. [ 5 ] At the hearing, the mother agrees with the grounds of endangerment and with the measures, but she asks that supervision be lifted when she is with the maternal grandmother and objects to the clarification of a permanent life project excluding a return with her. [ 6 ] As for the father, he also agrees with the grounds of endangerment and with the measures, and objects to the clarification of a permanent life project excluding a return with him.

Regarding father-children contacts, he wants more explanation from the Director, especially concerning the lifting of the supervision. [ 7 ] The children's lawyer, who is acting under a legal mandate, reserves her position. After having taken note of the documentary evidence and the testimony of the parties, she consents to the conclusions sought by the Director.

However, since the children are already entrusted to their maternal grandmother, she expresses the opinion that establishing a permanent life project excluding the return to the parents is not pertinent at this time. [ 8 ] In reply, the Director submits that it is important that the Tribunal takes note of this intention since the Director’s approach (frequency and intensity of service) would be different if the objective did not implicate a return to the parents. ISSUES IN DISPUTE 1.

Should the Tribunal take note of the Director’s intention to clarify a permanent life plan for children that excludes a return to the parents? 2. Is supervision of parents-children contacts still necessary? Analysis Living environment [ 9 ] The children lived with their maternal grandfather and his spouse from March 27, 2020 to July 30, 2020. Since then, they have been living with their maternal grandmother, Mrs. C, and are developing well. Y is potty-trained and X has started too. They both improved their language skills. Both children attend daycare full-time.

Their bond with their maternal grandmother continued to grow. [ 10 ] Ms. C collaborates with the Director. She gives information spontaneously. Unfortunately, she was refused as a kinship foster family because of her past follow-up with the DYP for her eight children over a period of several years and because she failed to give some documents. This being said, the Director informed the Tribunal that she will allow a derogation for the accreditation of Ms.

C as a kinship foster family for Y and X. [ 11 ] At this stage, all parties agree that it is in the best interest of the children to remain in the care of their maternal grandmother where they grow up with a meaningful person who meets their needs. However, the parents object to the clarification of a permanent life

project excluding a return to them. They both think that they will be able to take back the custody of their child by the end of the next six-month order. [ 12 ] According to the Director, even though the parents improved their situation, they are not yet at the point of taking care of their children on a full-time basis, nor to start a progressive reintegration. In addition, the placement deadlines are expired.

So, the Director believes that she cannot ask these children to be kept waiting any longer. [ 13 ] For its part, the Tribunal considers it important to clarify this question, even if, in itself, the conclusion sought is not enforceable. Indeed, by this request, the Director is not only signifying the Tribunal of her intention, but she seeks nothing more and nothing less than its approval in the face of the privileged orientation.

Therefore, this decision should not be taken lightly. [ 14 ] In that context, as far as the mother is concerned, the Tribunal does not believe that a return can be considered for the following reasons. [ 15 ] Since the last order, her personal situation has changed little. Her mental health is still currently fragile. In this regard, at the hearing, the mother admitted to being suicidal. [ 16 ] On the other hand, her relation with Mr. D is not positive and has been punctuated by ups and downs. On May 11 th , 2021, the mother said that she decided to break up with Mr. D.

On May 18 th , she confirmed to the Director that they were not a couple. On May 25 th , she mentioned that the break-up was a misunderstanding. On June 6 th , the mother told the Director that Mr. D was gone and they were no longer a couple again. On June 11 th , Mr. D and the mother both said that it was not a break-up. [ 17 ] The week before the hearing, an argument broke out between the mother and her spouse, requiring the intervention of the police, the mother's spouse having threatened to kill her puppy who had peed on the ground.

At that time, the mother was then upset and tried to find a place where the dog could be housed. [ 18 ] The maternal grandmother is also worried about her daughter’s relationship. She said that, during the visits, she can tell right away if her daughter is living with her spouse or not. When she is with him, she spends more time on her cell phone and is less patient with the children.

She also has difficulties to maintain some parts of the routine. [ 19 ] So, the Tribunal considers that the mother still has a lot of work to do in order to be able to take care of herself and that a return of the children should be excluded. [ 20 ] As for the father, the Tribunal considers that it is too early to throw in the towel. [ 21 ] The father changed his behaviour. Since August 2020, he has stopped using speed and cocaine. Four months ago, he also stopped using cannabis. This new behaviour coincides with the arrival of a new spouse who has been living with him for the past three months.

She met with the case worker and is willing to join the visits between the father and the children upon agreement with the Director. She also agreed to collaborate with the case worker. [ 22 ] The father has a full-time job. [ 23 ] In terms of father-children visits, the father has greatly improved. He accepts the advice of case workers and puts it into practice. During the one-and-a-half-hour visits twice a week, he is able to maintain a routine and a framework. He meets the children’s needs. Last winter, he missed a lot of visits because he was working “on call” removing snow.

However, from the end of September 2021, the father will take up a new job with a

schedule allowing him to be more stable in his contacts. [ 24 ] The father has developed a bond with his children. He is able to be in the present moment with them and to be in control of his emotions. [ 25 ] That being said, the Tribunal is well aware that all these changes are recent and that only time will tell us if the father can take care of the children on a full-time basis. Even though the placement delays have been reached, the Tribunal can extend those delays, in order to validate if the return of the children with their father could be envisaged in a short delay.

In this matter, the Tribunal concludes that this decision is in the best interest of the children considering that, during this time, they will continue to evolve under the care of their maternal grandmother.

Visits between parents and children: [ 26 ] With regard to mother-children contacts, the mother has three visits per week, i.e. two visits to the maternal grandmother's home from 3.30 p.m. to the children's bedtime and one visit from 3.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. at her home in the presence of her spouse and supervised by the Director. [ 27 ] The evidence reveals that the mother is adequate during the contacts and that they go well. She is proactive, does activities with them and she is able to reassure them when they need to be. [ 28 ] That being said, the problem lies elsewhere.

The mother is under medication which she takes regularly but she still has suicidal thoughts. Furthermore, the relationship with her spouse is tumultuous and has an impact on her behaviour during the visits. She seems less into the visits and uses her cell phone more often. [ 29 ] For all those reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the supervision is still necessary for the mother in order to evaluate her state of mind.

However, the Tribunal will allow the lifting of the supervision if the mother’s mental health stabilizes and to the extent that the contacts take place to the exclusion of her spouse. [ 30 ] As for the contacts between father and the children, the evidence indicates that the visits with the father have improved and are

going well. [ 31 ] At the hearing, the Director worried about the father’s reaction to the possibility of the Tribunal deciding on a permanent plan excluding the return of the children, thus justifying the necessity of the supervision. [ 32 ] Considering that the Tribunal did not decide on that course of action, this argument is not valid. [ 33 ] Currently, some visits are made at and supervised by the maternal grandmother. Both the father and the grandmother recognized that the supervision of the children is more difficult for the father, since they spontaneously refer to the maternal grandmother.

That said, the maternal grandmother also admitted that one-and-a-half-hour contacts are not sufficient to meet the children’s need. Moreover, over such a short period of time, both the Director and the grandmother conceded that supervision is not necessary. [ 34 ] In that context, in the absence of any other motives, the Tribunal considers that the supervision is no longer needed for the father. FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS partially the present application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are still in danger for the following reasons: - 38 b) 1)

i) physical neglect; - 38 b) 2) serious risk of neglect (mother’s mental health issue, domestic violence between the mother and her spouse) [ 37 ] TAKES NOTICE that following a negative evaluation of the living environment of the maternal grandmother C, the Director of Youth Protection will allow a derogation for the accreditation of the said person as a foster family; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family, namely the foster family of C. [ 39 ] AUTHORIZES, in the children’s favor , supervised contacts with the mother, by a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection, upon frequency and modalities determined upon agreement between the parties; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the lifting of the supervision between the mother and the children if the situation allows as far as the mother’s mental health stabilizes and to the extent that the contacts take place to the exclusion of her spouse Mr.

D. [ 41 ] AUTHORIZES, in the children’s favor, contacts with the father, upon frequency and modalities determined upon agreement between the parties; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regards or in their children’s regards to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active and honest

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal, to the elaboration of the intervention plan and to the psychosocial follow-up, in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the children attend a childcare establishment; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family for a period of six (6) months; [ 46 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ CATHERINE BROUSSEAU, J.C.Q.

M e Christine Loubier Counsel for the DYP M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother M e Mireille Leblanc Counsel for the father M e Ysabelle Proulx

Counsel for the children Deposited exhibits: D-6 and D-7 Date of written judgment: November 26, 2021