2018 QCCQ 13852, 2018 QCCQ 13852

Protection de la jeunesse — 184253 2018 QCCQ 13852 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032058-174 DATE : May 22, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on May 22, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise and extend the court order rendered on May 23, 2017. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted in her paternal grandmother’s A family.

The Director also recommends that diverse support measures be ordered for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The mother and the child’s lawyer are in agreement with the proposed plan. [ 5 ] The father contests the suspension of contacts with his daughter. Questions in litigation [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 7 ] Is it in the child’s best interest to have visits with the father, while he is in prison? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] The child is thriving under the care of the paternal grandmother.

She’s been registered in daycare on a full time basis. [ 9 ] The mother maintained regular and positive contacts with her daughter. [ 10 ] In May 2017, the mother completed her inpatient treatment at A Pavilion. On July 30, 2017, the mother relapsed having consumed cocaine with the father. She also consumed on two other known occasions. [ 11 ] The father was released from prison in July 2017. He only had two visits with the child, the last one being in July 2017, for the child’s birthday.

He explained that, as he had relapsed, he did not want to see his child. [ 12 ] On August 2, 2017, the mother entered the A House residential program. Around September 1, 2017, the mother left the program having difficulties with the program’s expectations and structure.

[ 13 ] On September 6, 2017, the mother gave birth to the child’s sibling, Y. The mother and the child’s brother tested positive for cocaine at birth. [ 14 ] On September 14, 2017, the mother and the child’s brother entered the Portage residential treatment program. Since then, the mother collaborated actively with the staff from Portage and with the Director. [ 15 ] In November 2017, the father was incarcerated. He may be released from prison as early as June 2018, when he is potentially eligible for parole. [ 16 ] On April 19, 2018, the mother was integrated into a supervised apartment.

She plans to reside in this resource for a period of 18 months. [ 17 ] On April 11, 2018, the father requested to have visitation with the child. [ 18 ] On May 1, 2018, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory A care of the child in the A home of her paternal grandmother. The Tribunal ordered a prohibition of contact between the child and the father. [ 19 ] The mother took several steps to stabilize her personal situation.

Time is needed at this point to determine if she will be able to maintain her sobriety and provide for the child’s and her brother’s needs on a regular basis. [ 20 ] The father reports taking steps in prison to remain sober and develop a more positive lifestyle. He started seeing a psychologist and is attending AA meetings weekly. He considers, as he is progressing, that he deserves visits with the child. He wants to get to know his daughter. [ 21 ] At this point, it is not in the child’s best interest to be transported to the prison to have visits with her father.

Following his incarceration, the father plans to enter the A Program at [City A]. He needs to demonstrate stability and consistency in his process before visits begin. Steps will then be taken to reintroduce the father in the child’s life. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still in danger; [ 24 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the order rendered on May 23, 2017; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her paternal grandmother, Ms.

C; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the Director of Youth Protection accredited the paternal grandmother as a A family; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and TAKES ACT that contacts may be gradually increased to access the viability of a reintegration process into the mother’s care; [ 28 ] ORDERS the suspension of contact between the child and her father, until such time as he is no longer incarcerated and, subsequently to his release, ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the Director of Youth Protection’s plan to start the process of visiting after father commit to six to eight weeks of Portage; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to undergo random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents not be under the influence of any substances in the child’s presence; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain information with all the professionals involved, including staff at A jail, or at any other jail where the father may be incarcerated; [ 33 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to receive treatment for their drug consumption for as long as deemed necessary by the professionals involved; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on June 4, 2018 /cd Mtre Marie-Josée Paiement

Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Luce James Counsel for the child Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the mother Mtre Marc Morin Counsel for the father Date of hearing: May 22, 2018