2020 QCCQ 11211, 2020 QCCQ 11211

Protection de la jeunesse — 208660 2020 QCCQ 11211 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 000977-196 DATE: September 28, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2014 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 September 28, 2020. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the honourable Lucille Beauchemin on October 30, 2019. [ 3 ] On August 4, 2020, considering the mother’s absence, the Tribunal postponed the hearing of the application for revision.

The Tribunal maintained the measures previously ordered on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family and that diverse support measures be ordered until June 30, 2021. [ 5 ] The mother spoke to her attorney this morning and gave her a clear mandate to contest the Director’s recommendations. She wished to have her two sons returned to her care. Around 4:45 p.m., she left the Director’s office. As the Youth Protection worker tried to convince her to return, she hung up the phone.

The mother was duly notified about the hearing, but decided not to participate in the Court process. The Tribunal decided to proceed in her absence. [ 6 ] At the end of the hearing, the child’s attorney agreed with the Director’s plan. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] While the child was cared for by his mother, he exhibited difficult behaviours in daycare (aggressiveness, not listening, bullying, throwing objects, etc.). [ 9 ] The mother refused to collaborate with the Director.

On numerous occasions, she has been verbally aggressive and insulting towards the Youth Protection worker.

[ 10 ] On November 30, 2019, the police had to intervene at the family’s residence. The mother was observed to be intoxicated by alcohol. [ 11 ] On March 23, 2020, during a home visit, the Youth Protection worker observed that the house was dirty and in disarray. [ 12 ] On April 8, 2020, the police were called in relation to a family dispute. The mother had fled to the neighbour’s home.

She reported that B was agitated and was throwing objects. [ 13 ] On June 11, 2020, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in a foster family. [ 14 ] During the child’s placement, the mother was verbally aggressive. The child was placed with Mrs. C, the maternal aunt. At some point, the mother presented herself to the maternal aunt’s residence, yelling at X to “get out” of the home and grabbing him by the arm. [ 15 ] On June 17, 2020, the Youth Protection worker observed that contrary to the Court order, the child was at the mother’s home.

The police had to be call to resolve the situation. [ 16 ] On June 22, 2020, the child and his brother were transferred to the foster family of the maternal grandparents. They adjusted well to this known environment. [ 17 ] On the same date, the mother presented herself to the CLSC nursing station. She forcefully opened the door of the Director’s office. She yelled and raised a fist at the Youth Protection worker.

On June 25, 2020, the mother was charged with assault and criminal harassment. [ 18 ] The child started school in September. [ 19 ] The mother’s collaboration with Youth Protection worker has remained difficult throughout the intervention. Charges of assault and criminal harassment towards a Youth Protection worker are still pending. The Director will continue his efforts to reach the mother in the hope of creating a working and positive relationship.

Two new workers are available to work with her. [ 20 ] Due to the mother’s lack of collaboration, it has been impossible for the Director to arrange a visitation schedule. Nonetheless, the child has visited his mother with the support of the extended family. [ 21 ] The mother still considers that her alcohol and marijuana consumption is not problematic. Consequently, she does not wish to address this issue. She has continued to consume marijuana. Even if her lawyer stated that the mother took

part in a therapeutic process at [Centre A], this has not been put in evidence. The mother does not recognize that the Director’s intervention remains necessary. She believes that the Youth Protection worker is involved for financial gains. She was encouraged to seek support through Social Services but to no avail.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 24 ] REVISES the order rendered on October 30, 2019; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the child remain entrusted to the foster family of his grandparents; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court and fully collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the mother report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or another resource deemed appropriate concerning her substances abuse and personal issues; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information regarding the mother’s presence at appointments with professionals and her level of involvement with the services provided; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to perform unannounced visits at the mother’s residence if and

when the child is present; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the police collaborate to the execution of the judgment; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE until June 30, 2021; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on October 15, 2020 /cd Mtre Geneviève Apollon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Kelly Ann Sinnett Counsel for the childt Mtre Nada Boumeftah Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 28, 2020