r v. A, 2017 QCCQ 16967

Protection de la jeunesse — 177332 2017 QCCQ 16967 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005042-166 DATE: August 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2011 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A 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 ] In virtue of an order dating May 8, 2017, the Court extends for one year the application of protective measures applied in the situation of the child X, maintaining her with her father while providing for supervised contacts with her mother following modalities determined following mutual agreement. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the partial revision of this order as concerns the access rights between the child and her mother, alleging that the parties no longer agree to their frequency.

The recommendation is that the supervised visits occur every second week for a two-hour duration. [ 3 ] The father as well as the child’s attorney, acting within her legal mandate, subscribe to the Director’s position. Although agreeing to the pursuit of supervision, the mother contests the need for a reduction of her weekly one-hour visitation. [ 4 ] Analysis and decision [ 5 ] X remains entrusted to her father. She is evolving positively in this environment and receives response to all her needs. [ 6 ] She attends kindergarten.

Although she makes certain strides since her integration, developmental delays justify the decision to hold her back for the next school year. [ 7 ] Divorce proceedings remain ongoing between the parents. Their relationship is complex and often conflictual. Although separated, the mother repeatedly makes demands of the father in view of receiving his financial support and help. This is often the subject of heated discussions, to which X is witness. [ 8 ] The last judgment underlines a positive evolution of the mother’s personal situation and her availability for her daughter.

The objective is to progress towards lifting the supervision of the contacts over the summer period. [ 9 ] In reason of a steady decline in the mother’s situation, it is not possible to pursue this objective and the visitation remains every week under supervision. [ 10 ] Stating not seeing the need to pursue her mental health services, the mother decides to end her follow-up, although she continues to take her prescribed medication.

She testifies to feeling better and being more in control of her emotions. [ 11 ] Since the end of these services, there has been a regression as to the mother’s personal situation and cooperation. On a personal

level, she shows instability as to her residential and financial situation. She is currently residing in a woman’s shelter. [ 12 ] Although she participates in the meetings with the caseworker, the mother offers little real cooperation with social services. She rejects the reasons having justified protective measures and blames the father and the Director of Youth Protection for her present situation and for having taken her child from her. [ 13 ] The mother refuses to review or sign the intervention plan. She rejects all aid, counsel or assistance from the caseworker.

Communication is arduous and the mother often resorts to insults or threats. [ 14 ] Since the last judgment, the mother becomes progressively less available for her child during the contacts. X regresses to presenting various anxious reactions surrounding the visitation periods. [ 15 ] On July 27, 2017, there is a meeting between the case worker and the parents, to discuss and review the contacts in view of X’s reactions. The mother becomes quickly overwrought and it is necessary to seek the support of security agents to escort her. The mother calls the police, stating that her child was being kidnapped.

When they arrive, she admits that such was a tactic to ensure that the caseworker comes out to speak to her. [ 16 ] An educator continues to support beneficial contacts between X and her mother. Over time, the mother’s cooperation wanes. Constant interventions remain necessary in regards to the mother’s ability to supervise and structure her daughter and this, despite accompaniment being in place for over a year. There is limited integration of the advice and guidelines offered. [ 17 ] On August 3, the Court renders a provisional order scheduling X’s contacts with her mother every two weeks for a two-hour period.

Since that time, two visits occur. X is still showing some resistance to the visits but overall, her reactions during and after the visitation have diminished. [ 18 ] The mother considers that her daughter might forget her should the visits be scheduled every two weeks. Her testimony also underlines her distrust and frustration with the present situation.

She states no longer wanting to work with social services and not needing services. [ 19 ] After considering the evidence, the Court considers that the child’s best interests dictate a partial revision of her contacts with her mother and this, in reason of a multitude of contributive factors which are affecting these. [ 20 ] Firstly, the rehabilitation of the mother’s parental capacities remain an ongoing issue. The fluctuations in her personal situation overwhelm her ability to continue working towards this goal and integrating the guidance offered.

Although she denies any present need for mental health services, the evidence demonstrates that she is having difficulties dealing with the myriad of issues concerning her family and personal situation.

Her availability, perceptions and reactions testify to this. [ 21 ] Concurrently, the Court considers that the rehabilitation of this situation is impeded by the fact that the mother has almost removed herself from the intervention and the measures put in place to respond to the situation of endangerment. [ 22 ] All this reverberates on the beneficial nature of the contacts with her daughter. [ 23 ] X needs to benefit from a healthy and serene relationship with her mother, while receiving a response to her developmental needs.

The weekly contacts do not respond to these needs in the present circumstances, as her reactions clearly testify. This, in conjunction with her need to be fully available for her academics, justify that the contacts with her mother be re-structured. [ 24 ] As to the possibility of lifting the supervision following mutual agreement, the Court considers that this is still a reasonable objective of the intervention, notwithstanding the problematics observed.

There had been a positive evolution of the contacts previous to the last judgment, demonstrating that when the mother has the capacity to engage in services and be a positive agent for the changes still dictated by the situation of endangerment. [ 25 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection.

In the absence of an agreement, the visitation will occur once every two weeks for a minimum of two hours and upon confirmation from the mother 24 hours prior to the visit; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive a follow-up for her mental health difficulties; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother gives the case worker access to said follow-up; [ 30 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions rendered on May 8, 2017 not inconsistent with the present judgment; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Montérégie for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: August 30, 2017