2016 QCCQ 6617, 2016 QCCQ 6617

Protection de la jeunesse — 162812 2016 QCCQ 6617 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000568-144 DATE: April 14 th 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE JEAN GRAVEL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […] 2014 Child [SOCIAL WORKER 1] and [SOCIAL WORKER 2] , youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A., working in A City Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in A City, Quebec, district A Mother and B , residing and domiciled in B City, [A Province], district B Father and C , residing and domiciled in A City, Quebec, district A Interested party ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ( Sections 95 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 asks the Court to review the decisions made on September 15 th 2015 concerning the child, X; [ 2 ] The child is a two year old child.

The last Court order of September 2015 entrusted her to her maternal grandmother’s care, Ms C. [ 3 ] The Court proceeded in the presence of the mother and of the grandmother, in A City on April 14 th 2016. [ 4 ] Ms C was granted the status of party to the hearing according to

Section 81 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 5 ] The grandmother has always been present in the child’s life since her birth. She has acted as a caregiver for her during prolonged periods. She assisted the mother when they lived in their household and wanted to care for the baby. [ 6 ] The grandmother acts in the best interest of the child. She is the caregiver who has the most extended experience in the baby’s life. [ 7 ] The father objected to the grandmother’s request of being granted the status of party. [ 8 ] He alleged that the grandmother had made threats and that there was a danger of kidnapping if the extended family took an important role in the child’s future.

[ 9 ] These allegations were not proven. The grandmother has always acted as a responsible caregiver. The child has never been neglected while in her care and the alleged threats were sincerely denied by the grandmother. [ 10 ] The father really fears that the grandmother will continue to be preoccupied by the child’s situation and try to maintain a bond between the child and her maternal family. [ 11 ] The enquiry held on April 14 th 2016 was made by visioconference with the father who was then in C City with his lawyer. [ 12 ] The Director asks on April 14 th 2016 that the child be entrusted to his father.

The Director recommends that the child maintain contacts with his mother and maternal extended family. [ 13 ] The mother agrees that the child be entrusted to her father. [ 14 ] The grandmother wants the child to have regular visits in the community in A City.

She wants the child to maintain a bond with her Inuit culture and family. [ 15 ] The grandmother agrees to travel to C City in order to arrange and supervise contacts between the child and her mother. [ 16 ] She also agrees to be present and to supervise her daughter when the child visits the family in A City in the coming months. [ 17 ] The father resides in B City, [A Province]. The child was entrusted to him on a provisional basis on January 29 th 2016 by the Youth Court under

Section 76.1 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 18 ] The father does not accept to travel to A City to allow contacts between the child, the mother and the extended maternal family. [ 19 ] The father’s paternity was established on September 11 th 2015. [ 20 ] He came to A City, found a job and was evaluated by the Director during the fall of 2015. [ 21 ] His parental capacities were identified and the Director favours that the father take responsibility for the child. [ 22 ] He had a conjugal relation with the mother before the child’s birth.

This relation had broken down prior to the child’s birth. [ 23 ] He acts as a full time father only since January 29 th 2016. This is a period of only two months and two weeks in the life of a two year old child. [ 24 ] The rest of the child’s life has been spent within her Inuit community. [ 25 ] The mother has serious mental health issues. She cannot take care of the baby on a regular basis.

She needs to be supervised when she is in contact with the child. [ 26 ] The maternal grandmother took care of the child between May 2014 and July 2015. [ 27 ] The child needed to be in foster care during the summer of 2015.

The child was again entrusted to her maternal grandmother from September 2015 to January 2016. [ 28 ] The father has chosen to take the child with him in [A Province], far away from her original, cultural and family environment. [ 29 ] He must assume his decision and take responsibility for the consequences of his choice of residence. [ 30 ] He says that it will be too stressful for the child to travel from [A Province] to A City to allow contacts between the child and the family. [ 31 ] He has presented on April 14 th 2016 an application for custody of the child to be granted by the Court of Quebec, Youth Division. [ 32 ] He suggests in the conclusions of said mother that the access to the child be made on an amicable basis between the mother and the father. [ 33 ] The father will need to be more comprehensive and open-minded if he wants the mother to still be present in the child’s life. [ 34 ] The child deserves the right to maintain her bond with her mother and her maternal grandmother.

She has lived most of her life in an Inuit community. She can travel from [A Province] to A City if she is adequately prepared and accompanied by her father without being overly disturbed. [ 35 ] The measures suggested by the Director will take place on a rather short period, namely until October 2016. [ 36 ] During this period, the mother will have the opportunity to receive mental health services and to stabilize her situation. [ 37 ] The maternal grandmother will have time to make a sound reflexion as to her involvement in the child’s life.

She gave up her responsibility for the child because she could not stand any longer the presence of the Director within her family. She can change her mind and offer a better collaboration to social services. [ 38 ] The father will have the duty for the coming months to show his concern and open-mind to allow the bound between the child

and her maternal family to be maintained and nourished. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 39 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 40 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, are still in danger; [ 41 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the decision rendered on September 15 th 2015; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the child remain with the father; [ 43 ] ORDERS that the father report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures he applies in his own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation of compromission; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 46 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 47 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue her follow-up with the CLSC for her personal issues; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother always be under the supervision of an adequate adult (father or maternal family member); [ 49 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the maternal grandmother be favoured and that they take place once in C City until October 31 st 2016 and once in A City until October 31 st 2016; [ 50 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family; [ 51 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 52 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the measures; [ 53 ] THE WHOLE until October 31 st 2016. __________________________________ JEAN GRAVEL, J.Q.C.

Mtre Geneviève Apollon, Attorney for the applicant Mtre Cassandra Neptune, Attorney for the child Mtre Marie-Claude De Gagné, Attorney for the mother Mtre Johanna Sarfati, Attorney for the father