2014 QCCQ 10159, 2014 QCCQ 10159

Protection de la jeunesse — 141129 2014 QCCQ 10159 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 145-41-000434-131 DATE : January 8, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT LEVESQUE, j.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ A Petitioner and X Child and B and C Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A petition for revision and extension of an order in respect of X (2011 […]) is referred to the Court by the Director of youth protection pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 2 ] On June 12, 2013, the Court declares that the security and development of this child are considered to be in danger and orders that the child be entrusted to a foster family until December 31, 2013 with supportive measures and social follow-up for the reasons enunciated in the written judgment which is very revealing of this sad familial situation. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and the father is not represented. [ 4 ] The mother denies as written most of the important allegations although the father does not deny them.

They both consent to the amended conclusions. Indeed, the Director of youth protection asks that the duration of the order be set for June 30, 2014 instead of April. [ 5 ] The child's lawyer accepts as well the conclusions of the petition. [ 6 ] The Court studied the psychosocial report, several police occurrence reports, psychological evaluations of the parents and

reports from Family Services regarding the parents' follow-up. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that, since the last Court order, the parents' situation has not changed much. [ 8 ] As in the past, the parents started committing themselves in follow-up (more Mr.

C) and then, they would miss appointments, stop their collaboration and exhibit signs of consumption of substances. [ 9 ] Police occurrence reports of October, 1 st and 3 rd , 2013 reveal that the officers still noted serious signs of intoxication on both parents. On this subject, one must say that most of the police occurrence reports are irrelevant as one or both parents are either suspects or complainants. If suspects of a crime (like theft of ipod or else), there is no evidence of any investigations' conclusions. However, police report of July 25, 2013 is also relevant regarding Mrs.

B's suicidal attempt and serious disorganization while police officers and paramedics were trying to help and control her. [ 10 ] Psychological evaluations of the parents are very revealing of the familial dynamic and problems as well as the personal issues they have to face and solve. [ 11 ] In

summary, the psychologist's conclusions regarding Mrs. B are that " the emotional and behavioural difficulties of this woman take the form of a Psychoactive Substance Abuse Disorder and an Adjustment Disorder with mixed Anxiety and Depressed mood. Mrs. B also presents a pattern of some dysfunctional personality traits that influence her daily living and relationship toward others.

The profile of this woman suggests a Borderline Personality Disorder with Antisocial and Dependent personality features ". [ 12 ] As for the father, " the emotional and behavioural difficulties of this man take the form of a Psychoactive Substance Abuse NOS Disorder. Deeply ingrained pervasive and maladaptive personality functioning patterns also are present in his daily functioning.

This client presents many traits and features of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder ". [ 13 ] She concludes that both parents present psychological, emotional and dependency issues that would prevent them from providing appropriate care for their children at the present time. [ 14 ] At first, they must accept these conclusions and recognize the work to be done on a genuine basis. [ 15 ] It is to be seen if they really want to embark in a serious process of healing and changing, as they presented many relapses and collaboration difficulties over the past years. [ 16 ] According to Mrs.

D, the children should remain in foster care for another six months to a year in order for the parents to receive the needed services. [ 17 ] It is to be mentioned that Mrs. D is of the opinion " that the risk evaluation associated to neglect and abuse toward the children remains high because registered progress during this evaluation is still very precarious ". [ 18 ] It is important for Mr. C and Mrs. B to read again these evaluations to realize the sources of their behaviours and to adopt the strategies Mrs. B recommends.

They must ask questions if they do not understand. [ 19 ] At the end, what governs the decision-makers is always the child's best interest. [ 20 ] Considering the reports' content and the position of the parties, the Court grants the petition in the sense of the conclusions sought by the Director of youth protection until June 30, 2014. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 22 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to her paternal grandmother, Mrs.

E; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her parents are determined by agreement between the parties, and supervised by the Director of youth protection as long as deemed necessary; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in all the measures in order to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to seek professional counselling and addiction services; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that a long term life project be determined for the child; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an organism or an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to X and her family; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of youth protection of the Centre Jeunesse A until June 30, 2014 for the carrying out of the present measures.

__________________________________ ROBERT LEVESQUE, J.Q.C. Me Louyse A. Lemieux, for the petitioner Me Florence Frappier-Routhier, for the child Me Hugo Caissy, for the mother Mr. C, the father