2018 QCCQ 3848, 2018 QCCQ 3848

Protection de la jeunesse — 181346 2018 QCCQ 3848 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000545-175 DATE: January 23, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2004 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 judgment rendered on June 7, 2017, in order to maintain the child in a foster family. His sister is aimed by the same amended application. [ 2 ] At the beginning, the DYP asks to amend their recommendations to modify the length of the measure and to add a request for a psychological, addiction and parental capacity assessments for both parents. [ 3 ] The mother is absent at the hearing.

During her last appearance in Court, on December 6, 2017, she expressed her intention to contest the application and was present when the new court date was scheduled. This date was even repeated more than once to her, and every party agreed to proceed on the given date. [ 4 ] The father and the child are present and duly represented. Their respective lawyers consent to the filling of the report to value the testimony of its author.

The parties do not contest that the security and development of the child are still in danger. [ 5 ] In fact, the parties are not objecting to most of the recommendations initially suggested by DYP, except for the place where the child should be entrusted as well as the amended recommendations about the request to seeking psychological, addiction and parental capacity assessments for both parents. [ 6 ] Moreover, the child’s lawyer disagrees with these recommendations regarding the father’s assessments, because the evidence does not sustain such requests. [ 7 ] As for the father, he agrees to participate in a parental capacity and an addiction assessment but refuses to undergo a psychosocial assessment.

He claims he does not have issues in that respect. [ 8 ] The father asks the Court to be entrusted with his son. The child also wishes to live with his father. [ 9 ] The evidence of the DYP is mainly based on the psychosocial report dated November 21, 2017, and the testimony of the social worker [social worker 1]. We cannot say that the evidence presented in this case is conclusive regarding the father, but we will get back

to that a bit later. [ 10 ] For the mother, the file is better documented and contains more substantive facts compared to the father. [ 11 ] First, let’s address the mother’s situation. Since the last judgment rendered on June 7, 2017, it seems that not much has changed in her situation. After reading the said court order, and reviewing the evidence submitted by the DYP, we cannot come to another conclusion. [ 12 ] When the file is first called in Court, on December 6, 2017, we can easily observe that the mother is not in a normal state. She is incoherent, disconnected and confused.

The Court notices that the mother’s behaviour is the same as described in the psychosocial report and in the testimony of the social worker, [social worker 1]. [ 13 ] The mother always says the same thing to the DYP that she will get involved but when it is time to take action she does not move. It seems that she has been saying that for a long time, even at the last court hearing on June 7, 2017, as hereby described: “ [21] However, the mother is willing to work on her issues and collaborated with the services. She wants to do whatever it takes for her children to be returned to her home.

In order to achieve that, she has to demonstrate consistency and structure in the household and certainly improve her parenting skills. In fact, she will have to be more preoccupied in the future with her children’s needs.” [ 14 ] In fact, nothing seems to improve regarding the mother, who did not take any steps to progress in her parenting skills. She also fails to demonstrate consistency and structure in her environment. [ 15 ] Concerning the contacts between the mother and her son, it is not an easy situation. Her son does not show up at the scheduled visits with his mother.

He even admits going only 3 times to see her in the past months. He tells DYP that he does not enjoy going at his mother’s place because she smokes a lot in the house or smokes marihuana outside, and that she also lies around the house. [ 16 ] The mother refuses any services regarding counselling or a detox, on the pretext that she can do it on her own. However, some services were already put in place to help the mother through the A family services, namely, a therapist. Still, often she is late or misses many appointments with the therapist.

When the mother finally attends a meeting, she does not cooperate and denies any responsibility for her actions. [ 17 ] On two occasions on the same day, the DYP went to the mother’s residence. Both times she looked intoxicated and had a slurred speech. The first time, she was planning on going with her daughter to a “pow wow” event in that state. She denies everything by explaining that her condition it is caused by her medication. She has a tendency to blame everyone and everything. [ 18 ] The mother complains a lot about her health issues and shares it constantly.

Her explanations about her diagnosis is unrealistic. More than once, she was observed with a slurred speech and was hard to understand. Sometimes during visits of the DYP, she is disoriented and incoherent while speaking about events from her past. [ 19 ] As mention previously, the mother denies her addictions or any other issues she could have. Moreover, she has a new man in her life who drinks and feels that it is not a problem.

They were both informed that this situation will not be helpful for the mother in regards with the children. [ 20 ] The child needs a secure, stable and healthy environment in order to develop adequately. Currently, the mother cannot provide such surroundings and it is obvious that she has issues. The additional re commendations proposed by the DYP seem to be appropriate under the circumstance. [ 21 ] Regarding the father, the DYP asks for more time to assess his situation because they don’t know anything about him. This extra time will allow the DYP to obtain more information about him and his situation.

The problem in this case is that the DYP have been involved in this family for many months and nothing has been done during this time to further the investigation. The DYP wakes up today with the request of the father for his son to be returned to him, as if, this was a surprise. [ 22 ] Even during the last court hearing which took place on December 6, 2017, it was understood that the DYP will extend the visitation between father and son. The father’s intention was already clear at that time. At the present hearing, it is obvious that nothing has been done since. The DYP neglected to do a follow-up in this file.

This is very serious since we are talking about the life of a child who seems to have been forgotten and set aside. [ 23 ] Of course, the father did not step up before for the reasons he explains. He clarifies the situation and does not try to hide behind a lame excuse but says the honest truth. He simply describes his state of mind when the previous proceeding took place in this file.

His explanations are believable and understandable taking into consideration the mother’s situation and the fact that she had the custody of the child. [ 24 ] In the end, what is really important, is to know if the father can take good care of his son, now, for him to develop adequately. Of course, in the past the father gave up children for adoption. He does not have any contacts with them, but tells the court that the situation was completely different.

Furthermore, he was in another place in his life, at the time. [ 25 ] It is clear that the father and the son have a strong bond and the father is well aware of his son’s needs. He wishes for him to have a good education and to become a person with many opportunities. [ 26 ] The Youth Protection Act provides the return of a child with his parents, if possible. In this case, I do not see how my decision can be otherwise based on the evidence heard in this case. [ 27 ] For the past 3 to 6 months, the child had sleepovers at his father’s.

Nothing reveals that any problem occurred during these visitations and everything seemed fine. In fact, we have no information that tells us otherwise.

[ 28 ] The father seems to be a stable person. He has been living in the same house for many years. He works as a carpenter on a seasonal basis. He admits that he used to have an addiction problem for which he has a follow-up since he is on a methadone program. [ 29 ] The DYP wishes to entrust the child to a foster family, to get to know the father better. The social worker has serious concerns about the father mostly about things she heard through social media or by hearsay. They also do not know if the father uses drugs.

That’s hardly a sufficient motive, to keep the child away from his father. [ 30 ] We imply things from the father’s past without any concrete evidence nor does this really affect the situation of the father today. The DYP considers or is not sure if the father’s environment is safe and secure.

If it is the case, why then did they let the child go there from Friday night to Sunday night, every second weekend and without supervision, it is a little bit worrisome and strange. [ 31 ] The Court will not repeat the concerns of the social worker about the father because there is no factual evidence concerning her worries. The fact that the father did not collaborate in the past and when exactly this happen is not established. In fact, it seems that for the past 3 to 6 months, he has been deeply involved in his son’s life.

Furthermore, the evidence reveals that the father was, in fact, always present in his son’s life even before his placement. [ 32 ] The child is 13 years old turning 14 soon. He functions well in school as well as in the foster family. However, he wishes to live with his father. He feels good at home. They do a lot of activities together. His father helps him with his homework and tries to develop his capacities.

We also have to consider that the child is not as vulnerable as before because he is older now. [ 33 ] Regarding the assessments, the Court does not agree to impose such recommendations with the evidence disclosed. The evidence does not allow the Court to arrive at this assumption. If the father wishes to submit himself to this exercise he can do so on a voluntary basis, if it is really his wish. [ 34 ] We cannot systematically request evaluations to ensure that a parent can have his child without having a basis to support such demands.

Concrete and dominating evidence is needed in order to investigate further a person. In the present case, it seems more a like a fishing expedition. [ 35 ] In the case of the father, we have no evidence that the father is not suitable or inappropriate to raise his son. No evidence demonstrates that the father is environment is unfit for the child, on the contrary. [ 36 ] As previously mentioned, the child needs a secure, stable and healthy environment in order to develop adequately.

Presently, the father is able to provide such surroundings and the preponderance of evidence does not show otherwise. [ 37 ] Of course, the Court does not put aside that the father and the child will need support through for this transition. More than ever, the implication of the DYP in this process is crucial in order to achieve th e desired objectives and results. [ 38 ] The Court considers that with the appropriate help and support, the return of the child into his paternal environment will have better chances of success .

Furthermore, the DYP will ensure a follow-up with the family. [ 39 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances, considering the evidence, the admissions and the consents of the parties, the application is, in part well founded. [ 40 ] Most of the recommended measures appear to be in the best interest of the child, except in regards to the place where the child should be entrusted and part of the assessments requested by the DYP.

As mention previously, the child should be entrusted to his father. [ 41 ] The father will have to collaborate and implicate himself with the DPY as well as the child. On the other hand, the DYP will have to be more involved with the family and ensure services in this case, because considering what was disclosed, it did not seem to be the case in the past months. [ 42 ] The situation will be assessed at the end of this measure and hopefully the situation of endangerment of the child will be in the past.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 43 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 44 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father until July 31, 2018; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be determined following agreement between the parties; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in a psychological evaluation; [ 48 ] RECOMMENDS that the child continue to work on his personal well-being with a psychologist as long as deemed necessary by the psychologist; [ 49 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a parental capacity assessment; [ 50 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in anger management; [ 51 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in an addiction assessment;

[ 52 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a psychological assessment; [ 53 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with her personal issues and addictions; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents benefit from external educator services; [ 55 ] ORDERS that neither parent talk negatively about the other in the presence of the children; [ 56 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 57 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel, and assistance to the child and his family until July 31, 2018; [ 58 ] 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 Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Richard Lavigne for the father Mrs. A the mother (absent) Date of hearing: January 15, 2018