2016 QCCQ 5472, 2016 QCCQ 5472

Protection de la jeunesse — 161035 2016 QCCQ 5472 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000489-150 DATE: February 22, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2009 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 child lives with both parents until they separate last June. The situation is reported to the Director of youth protection (DYP) a few weeks later. Up to this day, the parents’ relationship remains highly conflictual. [ 2 ] The DYP presents a petition for protection. All parties agree that the security or development of the child is in danger. However, positions diverge on the appropriate measures to put in place in order to correct the situation.

The DYP asks that the child be entrusted to both parents alternately for one week, while both parents wish to gain full time custody. [ 3 ] When they were still living together, the parents used to argue and fight in the presence of the child. Both parents have issues to deal with. [ 4 ] The situation has evolved since it was first reported to the DYP. [ 5 ] The mother suffers from a drug addiction problem. Last summer, she begins a methadone treatment program. She affirms she complies with that treatment. She submits herself to drug testing, weekly, when meeting her doctor and results are negative.

She also has difficulties to relocate in an appropriate home following her separation. She lives with friends and then with a new boyfriend. In November 2015, she moves into her new home, a house that she rents. [ 6 ] The mother says she tries to communicate with the father, for the sake of their daughter, but it is impossible. She affirms the father and the paternal grandmother speak disrespectfully about her in the presence of the child.

She is concerned about the impacts on the child, for whom it is a confusing situation. [ 7 ] Moreover, the mother states that sometimes the father follows her closely when she is driving her car and the child is with her. [ 8 ] Although she misses some appointments, the mother cooperates with the DYP. [ 9 ] The father has issues with regards to aggressiveness and impulsivity. He sees a psychologist to work on his difficulties. He has been clean and sober from drug, alcohol and tobacco for one and a half year.

[ 10 ] He admits discussing the mother’s situation with the child, because he is concerned about his daughter’s security. He does not trust the mother to be able to take care of the child. He thinks the mother still abuses prescribed medication. He questions his daughter about her mother and even records what she tells him. He is convinced that is the proper way to do, since he wants to show evidence to social services. The father says he believes one hundred percent what the child tells him.

Unfortunately, he does not consider the possibility that his daughter would tell him what he wishes to hear, despite the fact it might not be true. [ 11 ] The child is well aware of her parents’ conflicts. She witnesses them and suffers from the situation. [ 12 ] During the fall of 2015, the child is entrusted to her grandmother, on a provisional basis. At the time, her father lives in another community while the mother does not have a stable home. On December 2, the Court revises the provisional measures and entrusts the child to her parents, alternately, for periods of one week.

According to the DYP, it goes fairly well. The child appreciates spending time with each parent and states there are less conflicts. [ 13 ] Both parents have their strengths and weaknesses. They are both able to provide appropriate care to their daughter, with professional support. However, they both have to accept the presence and importance of the other parent in the child’s life. [ 14 ] If both parents are willing to work on their issues and to give priority to their daughter’s interest, there is hope that the situation will improve. They have to protect the child from their conflicts.

The mother also has to remain sober and be consistent with her treatment. Negative drug test results will most likely reassure the father on the mother’s ability to take care of the child. [ 15 ] Considering the evidence, the Court concludes the petition is well founded and the measures recommended by the DYP are in the best interest of the child. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the petition for protection; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her parents, alternately, for periods of one week in a row, or according to other modalities agreed upon by the parties; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the child receive psychological follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submit herself to random drug testing and results be communicated to the DYP who will inform the father; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek counselling for her addictions; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father receive counselling for his anger management; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents receive a psychological evaluation and follow-up for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the DYP; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and her family until September 30, 2016; [ 26 ] 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 Kimon Kling for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: February 1, 2016 (Town A)