2017 QCCQ 18680, 2017 QCCQ 18680

Protection de la jeunesse — 179021 2017 QCCQ 18680 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-030018-154 DATE : March 29, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born on [...], 2015 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on January 18, 2016, declaring the security and the development of the child X endangered as a result of a serious risk of negligence as well as psychological ill- treatment and entrusting him to his father with a social follow-up for a year. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the father continues to require support in his responsibilities as a single father.

Furthermore, the mother continues to struggle with issues of mental health and drug consumption. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is proposing that the child remain in the care of his father along with continued social support including the services of an educator for a year. [ 4 ] The majority of the allegations are admitted by the parents who consent to the social follow-up. The father disagrees however with the proposed services of an educator. He considers that the services he receives through other community based organisations, coupled with the social follow-up, are sufficient to meet his needs.

The Situation [ 5 ] Since the prior judgment, the evidence establishes the following: [ 6 ] The father remains in a subsidized housing complex run by the community based organisation Dans la rue and obtains their services when needed. His apartment is clean, safe and his son’s overall needs are met. He further cooperates with the CLSC program SIPPE for parents of young children. His participation in the follow-up with youth protection services has been stable and satisfactory. [ 7 ] The child is developing well and is reaching age appropriate milestones although speech development is a concern of late.

Consequently, he’s been placed on a waiting list for speech therapy. He attends daycare on a regular basis. The youth worker observes that the child and the father share a healthy bond and there are no serious concerns regarding the father’s parenting skills. [ 8 ] Despite the current services in place, the youth worker suggests that the services of an educator would be appropriate.

She explains that the father has refused certain suggestions to participate in age appropriate activities with his son and her evaluation of the situation leads her to question whether he prioritizes his needs on occasion to the detriment of the child. [ 9 ] The worker concedes, however, that this issue was brought to her attention recently and she hasn’t had an occasion to discuss it

with the father if only to understand his position. [ 10 ] The father confirms that he has in fact refused to participate in certain group activities offered by the CLSC but explains that he doesn’t know any of the other participants which makes him uncomfortable. He adds that his son already participates in activities with his own friends and family members.

In any case, he testifies that he’s certainly open to suggestions if the worker has concerns but doesn’t feel that the added services of an educator is required, given the multitude of services that he already receives. [ 11 ] The mother continues to struggle with various personal issues, particularly her mental health. Having failed to obtain the services she requires for her borderline personality disorder, she has been prone to emotional outbursts leading to aggressive behaviour and suicidal tendencies. On one occasion, her behaviour escalated to the point that police assistance was required.

In addition, she has persisted in attempting to contact the father, usually while in a state of emotional crisis, despite his requests that she refrain from doing so. In the process, she has exposed the child to conflict. [ 12 ] The mother’s drug consumption continues to be an issue as she has yet to seriously invest in any kind of service. Currently, her financial situation prevents her from securing any kind of stable housing.

She alternates between spending the night at a friend’s home or at a community resource. [ 13 ] The mother’s collaboration with the social worker has been inconsistent as has been her contact with the child. Considering the precariousness of her lifestyle, she has considered returning to live with her father in Halifax to benefit from his support. [ 14 ] Recently, the mother has made taken the first steps towards rehabilitation.

She testifies that she’s placed herself on a waiting list for in-patient services at Foster’s Pavilion in relation to her drug consumption and that she’s currently attending weekly group meetings. She will be seeing her doctor shortly and intends to obtain medication to treat her borderline personality disorder. For the moment, she intends to stay in City A and to focus on dealing with her personal issues.

Her long-term goals include finding a stable apartment and returning to school. [ 15 ] Meanwhile, she hopes to maintain regular contact with her son and to eventually participate in the SIPPE program as well. [ 16 ] It should be noted that despite their personal issues, the father supports the mother’s steps to get better and considers that she has the potential to eventually reclaim her parental role. Conclusion [ 17 ] An evaluation of the situation leads to the conclusion that the Director’s intervention remains relevant.

The father derives needed support from the services offered to assist in the organisation of his responsibilities as well as develop his parental capacities. Furthermore, the volatile nature of his relationship with the mother remains a concern despite his expression of solidarity. [ 18 ] With respect to the educator, the Court is of the opinion that the suggestion is premature considering that the social worker has not yet had the occasion to discuss her concerns with the father.

In any case, the evidence presented is currently insufficient to conclude that these concerns are warranted given the explanations provided by the father that the Court considers reasonable. More importantly, the father has expressed being open to discussing the situation with the social worker and making adjustments if needed. It would be counterproductive to saturate the father with unwanted and potentially unneeded services given his level of cooperation to date. [ 19 ] The mother’s intentions to deal with her personal issues are certainly commendable and in her son’s best interest.

It should be noted however that she has expressed the same intentions in the past without the necessary follow through. The Court invites the mother to commit to the plan that she expressed in court, both for herself and for her son. Her unstable lifestyle and constant emotional distress will not improve unless she avails herself of the services offered on a consistent basis.

Only then will she be able to make longstanding changes. [ 20 ] Considering the evidence presented as well as the parties’ consent, the Court concludes that the child’s best interests are met by maintaining him with his father, along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 22 ] THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child is still endangered; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of his father to the exclusion of the mother in a setting approved by the DYP; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the DYP, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing the child to their conflicts; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive mental health support and follow through with her doctor’s recommendations; [ 29 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to exchange pertinent information with relevant professionals in order to ascertain the parents’ progress and attendance; [ 30 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent, ORDERS that they continue to cooperate with the DYP and with organizations such as Dans La Rue and SIPPE offered by the CLSC;

[ 31 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s intent to sign over her parental authority with respect to educational, health and travel matters should she be unavailable to sign them; [ 32 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the DYP intends to offer the father the services of an educator; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

SIGNED IN CITY A On April 6, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Marie-Josée Paiement Attorney for the D.Y.P. Michèle Robidoux Attorney for the child Lilian Stah Attorney for the mother Karine Dallaire Attorney for the father Date of hearing: March 29, 2017 KO/lf