2014 QCCQ 20004, 2014 QCCQ 20004

Protection de la jeunesse — 148080 2014 QCCQ 20004 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 550-41-001000-122 DATE: October 31, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [Social worker 1] , person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection Petitioner and X Child and A B In their capacity as parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) [Traduction anglaise officielle] ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). JP 2072 [ 1 ] As she considers that the security and development of X are still in danger, the Director of Youth Protection asked the Court to review and extend the order issued on November 13, 2013. [ 2 ] On that date, the Court declared that the child’s security and development were still in danger and ordered his placement with a foster family for six months, with a possible return to his mother.

Social follow-up was for one year. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommended that that decision be reviewed and extended. She recommended that the child remain with his mother, that social follow-up be ordered for one year and that any contact between the child and his father be prohibited. [ 4 ] The mother attended the hearing. She wanted the file to be closed. If the motion was allowed, she wanted contact between the child and his father to be prohibited. [ 5 ] The father did not attend the hearing. The motion was not served on him because the caseworker did not have his address.

He has not communicated with her since February 2014. He was incarcerated until December 2013, after being charged with possession and distribution of pornographic material. He has not seen his son since April 2013. In those circumstances, the Court agreed to proceed in the father’s absence.

However, it would have been preferable for the motion to have been served on him by a special method of service. [ 6 ] With consent, counsel for the Director of Youth Protection filed the caseworker’s report to supplement her testimony. [ 7 ] The evidence showed the following facts. [ 8 ] Since the last decision, the mother has continued to try to improve and stabilize her situation. She completed follow-up to improve her parenting skills and continued to receive the services of the CLSC. She rented an apartment and had all the furniture and equipment for her son’s needs.

She took the necessary steps to receive social assistance benefits. Therefore, after a period of gradual

reintegration, the Director returned the child to his mother on May 13, 2014. [ 9 ] The mother said she has made sufficient progress for the Director of Youth Protection to “get out of her life”. She acknowledged that she has a “good social worker”, but contended that she is now capable of getting along on her own. However, if the Court maintains the social follow-up, she is prepared to continue to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 10 ] According to the preponderant evidence, the mother’s situation has greatly improved, but is still fragile. Her son, who is only 2 years old, is very vulnerable.

It is therefore important to ensure that the mother is truly stable before ending the Director of Youth Protection’s intervention. [ 11 ] It is therefore in the child’s interest for the Director of Youth Protection to continue to oversee his situation for a few more months. Not only will that make it possible to ensure that the family situation is stable, but the mother, who wants to go back to school or find a job, can avail herself of the caseworker’s assistance.

The caseworker can also support the mother in her search for low-rent housing, which will be of benefit to the child. [ 12 ] Furthermore, since the motion was not served on the father, the Court cannot accede to the Director of Youth Protection’s request and prohibit any contact between the child and his father. The father must have an opportunity to be heard on that point. [ 13 ] If, during social follow-up, the father resurfaces and wants to see his son, he must apply to the social worker and visits must be supervised.

If, after meeting with the father or supervising the initial visits, the Director of Youth Protection deems that resumption of contact is not in the child’s interest, she can ask the Court to review the present order, after serving her motion on the father. [ 14 ] In the circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in declaring that the child’s security and development are still in danger and in allowing the recommended protective measures, which, according to the evidence, are appropriate for the child’s needs. [ 15 ] The motion is founded; it is in the interest of the child and respects his rights; [ 16 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 17 ] ALLOWS the motion in part; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the child’s security and development are in danger; [ 19 ] ORDERS the execution of the following protective measures: (

a) That X be entrusted to his mother; (

b) That a person working for the Centres jeunesse A provide the child and his family with aid, counselling and assistance for six months; (

c) That the parents participate actively in applying the measures aimed at putting an end to the situation of endangerment, particularly by cooperating with the social worker for the Director of Youth Protection in developing and applying an intervention plan, and in reporting to her concerning the progress of the situation; (

d) That contact between the father and the child be supervised and that its frequency and duration be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS: (

a) That the father participate actively in follow-up for anger management and that he apply the recommendations made by the professionals; (

b) That the father participate actively in therapy offered by a specialized organization for his inappropriate sexual habits involving children and that he apply the recommendations made by the professionals; (

c) That the mother receive the assistance that her personal situation requires and that she apply the recommendations proposed by the professionals; (

d) That the parents receive the services required to help them with their parenting skills; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for execution of this decision. __________________________________ MARIE PRATTE J.C.Q. Mtre. Ariane Beaulieu Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Karine Dutilly Counsel for the child Mtre. Marie-Christine Fournier

Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: October 31, 2014