2011 QCCQ 7392, 2011 QCCQ 7392

Protection de la jeunesse — 111849 2011 QCCQ 7392 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-019483-072 DATE: May 13, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of: X Born on […], 2002 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 13, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered September 29, 2009, ordering that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother until October 10, 2010.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motion are the following: • In October 2009, the child integrated into the maternal grandmother’s care; • The child has settled in and has adjusted well to his living situation; • The child has been developing well behaviourally, socially and academically; • The mother continues to reside in City A; • The mother has continued to maintain daily telephone contacts with the child; • The mother, despite her difficult work schedule, has had visits with the child, either by her coming to City B, or the child and the grandmother visiting the mother in City C; • In or around June 2010, the mother underwent a psychological parental capacity assessment by Dr.

Cloutier; • The mother has demonstrated more stability regarding her mental health, however concerns remain regarding the mother’s ability to identify and meet the child’s emotional needs. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother’s care until June 30, 2011, with reintegration to his mother’s care as of June 24, 2011. Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family until March 1, 2012.

[ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. The mother was assessed by the Children’s Aid Society A and collaborated well with the assessment. The mother has had extended visits with her son and telephones him every day. It is her wish to have her son back in her care as soon as possible. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child consented to the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the mother has made positive changes in her life. She has a stable job and has addressed her mental health issues.

She is now in a position to regain custody of her son. [ 8 ] The psychological evaluation of the mother was done by Dr. Catherine Cloutier, clinical psychologist. Dr. Cloutier considers that the mother is aware of the developmental needs of her son and that she encourages them. However, she remarks that the mother sets herself in a relationship more of equals with her son, thereby leaving the boundaries of child-parent being more vague. Also, that the mother does suffer from anxiety and describes herself as an emotional person.

The psychologist makes the following recommendations: We recommend that a session be done with all members of the family to explain the changes to come, such as explained by each family member, and to permit X to ask questions. We recommend that Mrs. A receive a follow-up of at least a year in order to support and monitor the transition with her son’s integration in his new living environment with his mother. We recommend Mrs.

A receive help to develop coping strategies towards stress. [ 9 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his grandmother’s care until July 10, 2011, with a reintegration to his mother as of June 24, 2011.

The mother will need to be sensitive to her son's needs and to collaborate closely with the youth workers from the Children’s Aid Society A. [ 10 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 14 ] REVIEWS the order rendered September 29, 2009; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother’s care, Ms.

B, until July 10, 2011, with reintegration to his mother’s care starting June 24, 2011; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the contacts between the child and the mother have been extended; [ 18 ] ORDERS the mother to fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and to meet with the youth workers as requested; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother follow through with the recommendations of the psychological assessment; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the grandmother have regular contacts with the child; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to exchange all pertinent information with the Children’s Aid Society A to ensure the appropriate social follow-up of the child’s integration to his mother’s care and the subsequent social follow-up period to ascertain the stability in the home; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family until March 1, 2012; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed May 16, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q.

AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Guy-Luc Grondin (Counsel for the child) Date of hearing: May 13, 2011