2020 QCCQ 11051, 2020 QCCQ 11051

Protection de la jeunesse — 201337 JL 4031 COURT OF QUÉBEC 2020 QCCQ 11051 YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] No: 525-41-033076-175 DATE : March 12, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION FOR THE CENTRE INTÉGRÉ UNIVERSITAIRE DE SANTÉ ET DE SERVICES SOCIAUX A applicant and X born on […], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (SECTION 95 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine. [ Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135 ] [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an Application filed pursuant to

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act by a person duly mandated by the Director of Youth Protection ( the Director ) to revise an order rendered by the undersigned on December 14, 2018, entrusting the child to the mother along with a social follow-up as well as other specific measures until December 14, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director alleges the following: 3.1. the child remains in the mother’s care; 3.2. the mother and the child continue to reside with the maternal grandmother, Mrs. C;

3.3. the child attends daycare daily and the maternal grandmother assumes the transport to and from the daycare; 3.4. the father began having consistent and regular supervised visits with the child once a week said contact having been reported as positive; 3.5. the father’s supervised contacts with the child were eventually lifted and contacts have been progressively increased to once a week on one week with an entire weekend the following week; 3.6. the father has been sent to three (3) random drug tests and the tests have yielded negative results for drugs and alcohol; 3.7. currently, the mother expresses not wanting to obtain support services to address her personal issues; 3.8. on August 19, 2019, the mother was involved in a family dispute with the maternal grandfather which led to the police being called; 3.9. on that date, the mother was arrested and detained; 3.10. on August 20, 2019, given the mother remained incarcerated, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to the maternal grandmother, Mrs.

C; [ 3 ] As explained later, the child is currently entrusted to her mother on condition that the latter live with her own mother. Today, the Director is recommending that this measure be maintained, with various other support measures, for nine months. [ 4 ] The parents and child’s attorney are all present and in agreement with the request. [ 5 ] The present court hearing began before the undersigned on October 30, 2019.

On that date, the evidence established that following the December 14, 2018 Court order, the child continued to live with her mother and appeared to be doing well. [ 6 ] There had been repeated incidents where the mother had been hostile or aggressive toward either her parents or the father, even in the child’s presence. Because of this, the police had been involved and the mother had been arrested, including for other criminal infractions dating back to 2018 and for breaches in relation to these accusations.

The mother was arrested in July 2019 and again in August 2019 and could no longer have contact with her own father.

As well, following an emergency hearing held on August 27, 2019, the child was maintained with her mother but on condition that the mother reside with her own mother. [ 7 ] The facts revealed as well that the Director had continued to have a difficult time getting accurate information from the mother. [ 8 ] As well, the grandfather had been reporting that the mother had been gambling important sums of money, a claim the mother was denying. [ 9 ] The situation was very worrisome given that the mother was not cooperative and refused to get mental health help despite being encouraged to do so by the Court, the Director and her parents. [ 10 ] The father was also worried and felt that the mother should not be allowed to care for the child on her own. [ 11 ] The father initially had supervised visits but they became unsupervised in February 2019.

He was seeing his daughter essentially every second weekend and it appeared that visits had been going well. [ 12 ] The father was stating that he no longer consumed hard drugs. This had been confirmed by three random drug tests. However, he had recently been convicted and sentenced for setting a neighbor’s car on fire and was under house arrest.

The father was also seeing a mental health specialist for anxiety, depression and other personal difficulties. [ 13 ] At the October hearing, the parties agreed to continue essentially along the same lines and have the mother undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which she agreed with, the whole until today. [ 14 ] Since then, the child has remained with her mother on condition that the latter reside with her mother. The situation has been stable.

The child attends daycare regularly and no issues are reported, either concerning the child or the mother’s relationship with her mother. [ 15 ] The mother underwent the psychiatric evaluation ordered in October. The psychiatrist’s “ diagnosis is of a personality disorder with dysfunctional functioning in the paranoid, anti-social and narcissistic domains ”. (D-10, page 7) In the psychiatrist’s view, “ the DYP should continue to monitor and supervise Ms. A’s interactions and behaviour with her daughter and other individuals involved in her daughter’s well-being.

She is not ready, willing or able to undertake a course of psychotherapy at the present time. She is under treatment for mild anxiety and depression with Dr. Ron Hrynowski which is appropriate and well managed. ” (D-10, page 8) [ 16 ] The mother has yet to meet the psychiatrist who assessed her in order to be explained his results and recommendations. [ 17 ] It should be stated that the mother states today that she agrees to receive treatment for her personal difficulties. [ 18 ] The father has continued to see his daughter regularly and no incidents are reported.

However, on a few occasions, the father has contacted adult family member while seeming inebriated. A random drug and alcohol test that he underwent again came back negative. His house arrest is completed but he still has probation conditions to respect. [ 19 ] Questions were raised today given information that the mother was not allowing the father or the Director access to information

from the child’s daycare. Regardless, the mother clarified today that she agrees that both the father and the Director receive such information. [ 20 ] Given all of these considerations, it appears necessary for the Director to remain involved to monitor the parents’ personal situations and their interactions with each other and other family members. [ 21 ] AS A RESULT AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 22 ] GRANTS the Application for Revision ; and [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or development of the child is still in danger; [ 24 ] AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER

SECTION 91 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT , THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 25 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to her mother on the condition that she reside with Ms.

C (X’s maternal grandmother); [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between X and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the father remain sober while taking care of X; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father undergo random substance testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s agreement to do so; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to have access to and share relevant information with all professionals involved; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agree that both father and DYP have access to the child’s daycare and that she will make sure that they have access; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from exposing X to their conflict; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother follow through with the recommendations of the psychiatric evaluation; [ 33 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to arrange a meeting between the mother and the psychiatrist concerning her psychiatric assessment; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A for the purposes of the execution of this judgment; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF NINE

(9) MONTHS; [ 36 ] ORDERS the execution of this judgement by any peace officer, if necessary; _______________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Signed on April 2 nd , 2020 Me Sym-Anthony Davis Attorney for the Director Me Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the child Me Marc Castonguay Attorney for the mother Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the father

Hearing date: CL/nl October 30, 2019 and March 12, 2020