2010 QCCQ 18095, 2010 QCCQ 18095

Protection de la jeunesse — 107009 2010 QCCQ 18095 JD2125 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN […] Youth Division No. 455-41-000670-109 DATE: December 1, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JOHANNE DENIS J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF THE CHILD: X Born on [...], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A, having its head office at […], in the city and district A (Québec) Petitioner and A , […], city B (Québec) […] and B , (address unknown) Parents of the child and COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE , […], city and district A (Québec) ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for a early review concerning X, 9 months of age.

The Director of Youth Protection is asking that, in future, he be entrusted solely to his mother’s care. [ 2 ] The Director alleged that, since the judgment of June 16, the parents have had other violent episodes that exposed the child to major risks. In October, following a quarrel during which the father hit her, the mother filed a complaint against him. She said that the violence is directed as well toward two of Mr. B’s sons from a prior relationship. [ 3 ] The father was arrested and held the entire weekend.

The mother was in turn arrested further to a complaint against her under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for non-compliance with one of the conditions imposed on her by the Court. The baby was then entrusted to the care of the maternal grandmother. [ 4 ] The Director indicated that, following the judgment rendered in June, the parents showed interest in changing their way of life. The mother had begun personal follow-up with the CLSC. She also wanted to begin couple therapy. [ 5 ] The prerequisite for participating in couple therapy is, first, to allow the mother time to learn to develop self-control.

The mother is impulsive and is violent toward the father, who is also violent. He must continue to seek help from the [organization A]. Beginning in April, the father seemed determined to seriously assume his parental role. He had stopped using marijuana. [ 6 ] However, since August, the situation has deteriorated again. The father went back to using marijuana. [ 7 ] The couple had been living separately since the incidents in October. But they plan to move back together. The child now lives with his mother. The father went back to an old apartment in the company of a friend.

He visits his son almost every day; contact is supervised by the maternal grandmother.

[ 8 ] The parents once again admitted that their conjugal violence has a negative impact on their son’s development. However, the father hesitates to take concrete, consistent steps to resolve his problems. [ 9 ] The mother began follow-up with the CLSC. She established a good bond of trust with her social worker, Ms. [social worker 2]. She wants to continue that approach in order to work on developing her self-control, and then participate in couple therapy. [ 10 ] The father met once with Mr. [social worker 3], from the [organization A]. He did not follow up on that meeting.

He said he has been taking anti-depressants since the death of his mother.

He did not think it was worthwhile to begin to resolve his drug problem in order to better understand, in particular, the impact of marijuana use on his behaviour and examine why he uses that outlet. [ 11 ] The father hardly seems to realize that he was much more proactive in the spring when he decided to stop using marijuana. [ 12 ] To demonstrate these facts, the Director filed, in support of the evidence, a review report prepared by [social worker 1]. [ 13 ] She recommended that the child be entrusted to the sole care of the mother and that various measures continue to be implemented for one year, particularly that the parents be prevented from being alone with the child. [ 14 ] The parents, represented by their respective attorneys, admitted all the facts. [ 15 ] The mother left it up to the Court to decide on the duration of the measures. [ 16 ] The father agreed with all the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 17 ] A period of one year was proposed.

Although he said he would, the father did not implement measures in a sustained manner.

It is therefore difficult to provide for measures for a shorter period of time, as the mother would like. [ 18 ] Furthermore, in the Court’s opinion, the parents must be given an opportunity to build on what they will learn, if they indeed decide to pursue the steps they have taken. [ 19 ] The motion filed by the Director of Youth Protection is based on and is in the interest of the child. [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 23 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on June 16 th , 2010 in the present file; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his mother and that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 25 ] ORDERS that persons working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child X and his family for a period of one (1) year; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and his child be fixed upon agreement between the parties and that those contacts occur in the presence of a third party while deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the father engage in a follow-up with [the organization A]; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in a follow-up (individual) and that she continue to engage and collaborate with the services from the nurse of the CLSC; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents do not find themselves alone in the presence of their child, unless authorized by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ JOHANNE DENIS J.C.Q.

Mtre. Louise Martel Counsel for the DYP Mtre. Danielle Dontigny Counsel for the child

Mtre. Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Mtre. Maryse Pinsonneault Counsel for the father Date of hearing: December 1, 2010