2014 QCCQ 20357, 2014 QCCQ 20357

Protection de la jeunesse — 148369 2014 QCCQ 20357 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-51-000144-149 760-51-000143-141 DATE: December 19, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2006 Y , born on […], 2010 Children ______________________________________________________________________ A Father-Petitioner -and- B Mother-Respondent -and- C Tutor-Respondent -and- THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 father presents a motion before the Court requesting the reinstatement of access rights towards his sons X and Y and this, on a supervised basis. [ 2 ] In virtue of the order rendered on September 11, 2014 on the Director of Youth protection’s petition for a nomination of a tutor, the Court defers tutorship of the children to their maternal grandmother.

Concurrently, the Court prohibits the contacts between the children and their father, situation reflecting the status quo determined by previous protective orders. [ 3 ] At the hearing scheduled on the father’s motion, he is absent. His attorney explains receiving a mandate from his client and meeting with him on November 5 th last in order to sign the motion. He is well aware of the court date, from the signing of his motion, as well as his presence at a previous Court hearing. The attorney attempts to reach his client this morning, without success.

Unable neither to explain the father’s absence nor to proceed, his attorney requests a continuance of the motion. [ 4 ] The opposing parties contest this motion for the continuance, concurrently asking that the Court dismiss the motion. [ 5 ] The caseworker testifies of the father’s chronic unavailability and the Director produces their report. She has sent letters and made numerous attempts to reach him for discussing his children’s situation, to no avail. [ 6 ] The attorney for the father is unable to present a reasonable motive justifying his client’s absence.

This, in conjunction with the Court’s previous evaluations of the father’s availability, the interests of justice as well as the children’s best interests, prone that the Court reject the request for a continuance. [ 7 ] On the father’s motion, being offered no evidence sustaining his pretentions, the Court proceeds to its dismissal.

[ 8 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 9 ] REJECTS the motion for a continuance; [ 10 ] DISMISSES the motions for access rights. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Michel Robert Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother-respondent Me Claudette Morin Attorney for the tutor-respondent Me Amélie St-Denis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the children Date of hearing: December 19, 2014