2015 QCCQ 15316, 2015 QCCQ 15316

Protection de la jeunesse — 154012 2015 QCCQ 15316 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 140-41-000440-139 DATE: December 8, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on […], 2013 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 director of youth protection (DYP) works with the child’s family, following Court orders rendered since February of 2014. [ 2 ] On December 8, 2014, the Court entrusts the child to a foster family and orders protective measures. The DYP files a motion to revise and extend that judgment. The DYP requests that the child remain in foster care for several months, but foresees she can eventually be entrusted to the father.

Therefore, a long term placement would be premature. [ 3 ] Both parents agree with the recommended measures and so does the child’s lawyer. [ 4 ] The evidence reveals that the situation evolve, even though not as rapidly as one would hope. [ 5 ] The mother’s cognitive capacities as well parental skills were assessed. The results show that the mother has severe limitations. It is difficult for her to understand complex or abstract concepts. As far as being a caregiver to a young child is concerned, the mother does her best, but despite good intentions she cannot achieve that task.

She cannot answer a child’s needs of structure and daily routine. Answering basic needs remains an issue for the mother. The mother cooperates with professionals and receives help, but she does not have the capacity to improve her parental skills significantly. [ 6 ] However, the mother has regular contacts with the child, who also sees her siblings weekly when visiting her mother. [ 7 ] Both parents still consider themselves as a couple, but they do not live together on a full-time basis.

For a while, the father lives at the mothers, but he recently has moved into his own apartment. [ 8 ] The father is now more seriously involved in his daughter’s life. He can take care of her. Moreover, he reminds the mother about what has to be done during the visits, in order to look after the child. The father is aware of the child’s needs and appears able to answer them. There is a strong bond between the father and the child. [ 9 ] The father wishes to have his daughter entrusted to him. He sees her very often, but has lived on his own for a very short period of time lately.

He is present when the child spends nights at the mothers. He trusts the mother to be alone with the child, but only for short periods. So does the DYP.

[ 10 ] The father collaborates with the professionals who provide services to the family. However, several months ago, he refused to submit himself to an assessment of his parental skills. [ 11 ] As all parties admit, entrusting the child to her father would be premature. However, it is reasonable to hope and foresee the child going back living with her father on a time span of a few months. [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, the Court will extend the placement, despite the provisions of

section 91.1 of the youth protection act . It is in the best interest of the child to give a little more time to the father to demonstrate he can be the primary care giver, on a daily basis. [ 13 ] The social worker testified about the plan for the next few months. The child should spend a few days a week with her father.

The family will also benefit from the support of the foster family, who is the paternal uncle and his spouse. [ 14 ] Hopefully, the child will return to her father at the end of the ordered measures. [ 15 ] The petition is well founded and the recommended measures appear to be in this young child’s best interest. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition for revision and extension of order; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family until June 30, 2016; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and her mother by supervised as long as deemed necessary; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from specialized educator services as long as deemed necessary; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father submit himself to a parental skills assessment; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents receive services from the CLSC as long as deemed necessary; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2016; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the petitioner Me Mylène Murray for the child Me Marlène Ferguson for the mother Mr. B the father

Date of hearing: December 8, 2015 (Ville

A) Written judgment filed on December 10, 2015