2015 QCCQ 19698, 2015 QCCQ 19698

Protection de la jeunesse — 157061 2015 QCCQ 19698 JL4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-030211-155 DATE: November 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X Born on: [...], 2007 The Director of Youth Protection A applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a motion under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the child be declared to be in danger. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection ( the Director ) alleges the following: 3.1. the child is known to the Director of Youth Protection and the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, more particularly in the court file bearing the number 525-41-024075-103, for allegations pertaining to conjugal violence, mental health issues of the mother, substance abuse by the father and the family’s instability; this file was closed in January 2014; 3.2. the child ordinarily lives with the mother with monthly visits held between the child and the father; 3.3. the child lacks adequate parental supervision, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the mother leaves the child alone in the home for extended periods of time with his sibling, Y, to go out partying and/or for errands;

b) the child has been observed to be insufficiently dressed in cooler weather;

c) the child suffered from a ringworm which was left untreated for several weeks;

d) the mother fails to make proper arrangements for the child’s transportation to school in the morning;

e) at times, the mother drops off the child at school before opening hours or at a gas station, thus leaving the child by himself; 3.4. the mother’s collaboration with the child’s school staff and youth protection worker is inconsistent, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the mother sometimes fails to answer the youth protection worker and school’s communications;

b) on one (1) occasion, the mother failed to show up at a meeting with the youth protection worker and did not call to cancel prior;

c) the mother arrived forty (40) minutes late at a parent-teacher meeting;

d) the mother minimizes the extent of the child’s absenteeism from school; 3.5. the mother pursues a relationship with Mr.

C with whom incidents of conjugal violence occurred within the last year in the child’s presence; 3.6. the mother appears emotionally detached from the child as she has been observed to be impatient and unaffectionate towards the child; 3.7. the mother denigrates the father and the paternal grandmother in the child’s presence; 3.8. the mother minimizes the issues and rather claims that the child lies and exaggerates; 3.9. the father is overall collaborative but remains difficult to reach by the youth protection worker; 3.10. youth protection involvement is warranted; [ 3 ] The Director is recommending that the child remains entrusted to his mother’s care with other corrective measures until June 30 th , 2016. [ 4 ] The father is absent but a letter he prepared was filed establishing that he cannot be present at Court but agrees that the hearing take place without him.

He also agrees with the recommendations being put forward by the Director. [ 5 ] The mother is present and also agrees with the recommendations. [ 6 ] The reports filed as evidence state that X spent over two years under Court order with his paternal grandmother and returned to his mother’s care in January 2013. His situation remained followed by the Director for another year and was closed in January 2014. [ 7 ] X lives with his mother and his half-brother (Y, age 2). X has occasional contact with his father, who lives in Ottawa, his paternal grandmother and with his brother’s father, Mr.

C. [ 8 ] X’s situation was signalled again in December 2014. He has remained with his mother since and the latter has generally collaborated with the Director but has expressed that Youth Protection involvement is not required. [ 9 ] Since the signalement, various concerns have come to the front. [ 10 ] First is that X has expressed to various persons at various times that he is not happy living with his mother. He has stated wanting to live with his father. X has said this to his father and grandmother. X has shared with his father that although he loves his mother, he does not feel loved in return.

X has told his teacher that his mother does not “have time for him”. [ 11 ] The grandmother has expressed that over the years, X has gone from being happy to appearing unhappy. [ 12 ] There have been incidents of conflict between the mother and Mr. C, some involving the police (three times between July 2014 and January 2015). X has stated that he has been witness to some of these incidents but the mother, today, says that this was not the case. [ 13 ] X is sometimes left at school early in the morning, prior to the school yard being open. During this time, X is left without supervision.

Along the same lines, X has expressed that on occasion, his mother leaves him and his young brother alone in the evening. The mother explained today that neighbours were always close by but still, this was inappropriate and she would not do it again. [ 14 ] X had ringworm which the mother neglected to have treated for several weeks given her busy work schedule. In the end, it was the paternal grandmother who brought X to see a doctor. [ 15 ] The school has reported that the mother does not collaborate with them.

She is hard to reach, does not return calls or hangs up when they express concerns regarding the child. The school further reported that the mother does not appear interested in how the child

does at school. [ 16 ] The mother is generally collaborative with the Director but generally denies all the above claims. She has denied many of the concerns expressed by the school and family members. She will also say that X has a tendency to lie, be dramatic or exaggerate. Thus, she does not always recognize that there are issues of concern that need to be addressed. [ 17 ] More recently, the mother has shown better collaboration with both the youth protection worker and the school.

This is evident today. [ 18 ] Indeed, in front of the court, the mother recognizes that there have been issues in the past but that overall, there have been improvements in her and in her son’s situation. She is now taking an anti-depressant medication that is very helpful. She took time off work, returned and now feels good. Her son is in a new school and is doing well. She says that she agrees with what is being recommended because she finds it helpful. [ 19 ] The youth protection worker confirms that the mother is now very collaborative, open and child-focussed.

She has observed that the mother-child relationship has improved. [ 20 ] The father sees his child every three weekends or so and for extended periods during school breaks. He has expressed concern for his son although in the past, he did not necessarily see the need for youth protection involvement. Today though, through his letter, he is indicating that he does agree. [ 21 ] The child’s attorney is also in agreement with the measures proposed by the Director.

CONSEQUENTLY, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X is in danger due to neglect (inappropriate supervision) and serious risk of neglect. [ 24 ] IN VIRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT BY

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT: [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of physical or verbal violence; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother take steps to address her personal issues, including mental health follow-up, and follow the recommendations made by treating professionals; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to obtain and share pertinent information with professionals working with the family; [ 29 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that the child is provided with adequate supervision at all times and collaborate with the school professionals to ensure that his educational needs are met; [ 30 ] ORDERS a person working Centre A to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 31 ] THE WHOLE UNTIL JUNE 30th, 2016; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q.

M e Myriam De Blois Attorney for the applicant M e Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the child Judgment rendered verbally on November 20, 2015 CL/nl