2017 QCCQ 17736, 2017 QCCQ 17736

Protection de la jeunesse — 178158 2017 QCCQ 17736 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031730-161 DATE : October 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2008 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 October 27, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the decision rendered by the Tribunal on January 9, 2017. [ 3 ] On August 3, 2017, the Tribunal entrusts the child to the mother’s care and orders support measures on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remains entrusted to the mother’s care and that support measures be ordered for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother and the child’s attorney are in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 6 ] The father is asking for the file to be closed.

Questions in litigation [ 7 ] Is it in the child’s best interest to close the youth protection file? [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child remains entrusted to the mother’s care. An educator supported the family regarding questions of discipline and structure.

Both parents have progressed and they now understand the importance of using appropriate ways of discipline for the child. [ 10 ] The child attends school and is doing well academically. [ 11 ] Before June 2017, the father has been inconsistent in his visits with the child. Between June and September, the father had

weekly unsupervised visit with the child at his home. On September 13, 2017, the father decided on his own volition to change the frequency of visits to once every second Sunday. The visits are reported as positive for the child. [ 12 ] The parents continue to have a conflictual relationship. They still suffer from their past conflicting relationship. Communication between them remains an issue. Divorce and custody proceedings are presently in front of the Superior Court. [ 13 ] The mother is asking for support from the Director. [ 14 ] The father is asking for the file to be closed.

He reports that the youth protection worker is partial and that he made decisions that he did not like. He is stressed with the process. [ 15 ] At this point, as there is no other legal framework for the visits, support from the Director is still necessary in order to arrange for the child’s contacts with the father.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the children are still in danger; [ 18 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on January 9, 2017; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the children be maintained in the care of their mother; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from any forms of verbal and physical violence including the use of threats and/or expose the children to adult conflicts; [ 22 ] TAKES ACT that the father took steps to start the process of Superior Court in terms of custody and divorce; [ 23 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father collaborate with the youth protection worker and with the educator; [ 24 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father participate in a program to address the issues of conjugal violence; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months; [ 27 ] 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.

Signed on November 6, 2017 /cd Mtre Heidi Lechter Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Christian Benoît Counsel for the child Mtre Lilian Stah Counsel for the father Date of hearing: October 27, 2017