2018 QCCQ 5042, 2018 QCCQ 5042

Protection de la jeunesse — 181075 2018 QCCQ 5042 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 505-41-008064-158 DATE : February 23, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FRANCINE GENDRON ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2009 Child-respondant -and- A , Mother-respondant -and- B , Father-respondant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT Article 95 (1) of the Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to revise the order rendered on July 17, 2017 concerning X , aged 8. [ 2 ] At this date, the Court orders that the child remains with his paternal grandmother, Mrs.

C who lives in City A, New-York, until June 30, 2018. [ 3 ] It was also ordered that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties as to the frequency, modalities and degree of the supervision required. [ 4 ] The parents agreed that the grandmother signs the authorizations required for medical, dental, educational, extracurricular, recreational and travel purpose in case of emergency and if they are not reachable within 48 hours.

[ 5 ] On October 16, 2017, Judge Mireille Allaire orders provisional measures and forbids the contacts between the child and his mother. [ 6 ] On November 13, 2017, the Court orders provisional measures and authorizes contacts between X and his mother every second Saturday starting November 25, 2017, for three hours, supervised by some members of the mother’s family.

Those visitations have to take place in City A. [ 7 ] Today, the litigation is about the visitations. [ 8 ] The Director recommends that the contacts stay the same as decided on November 13, 2017. [ 9 ] The mother asks that the visitations take place at her place, in City B and that either the father or the [Center A] take charge of X’s transportation. [ 10 ] The father asks the mother to visit X in City A.

However, if the contacts have to take place in City B, he is ready to assume X’s transportation, one way every other Saturday, but asks the mother to take charge of the other transportation. [ 11 ] The child’s lawyer is in the opinion that X should not have to travel two hours and a half for the contacts and that the mother should come in City A to see him. She proposes that the Director pays the bus ticket to help the mother financially.

Developments in the situation [ 12 ] The Director essentially says that the mother relapsed in the days following the last order and stopped all services in regards to addictions and psychological follow-ups. [ 13 ] Starting July 27, 2017, the [Center A] received numbers of anonymous phone calls stating that the mother was using drugs (cocaine, crystal meth and speed) and alcohol. [ 14 ] In August, the father and Mr.

D, the father of the mother’s youngest son, notified the case worker that the mother had relapsed. [ 15 ] Since that time, the mother was dating a known drug user and dealer. [ 16 ] On August 24, the mother lost her job because the employer suspected that she was abusing drugs at her workplace. [ 17 ] On September 27, there was a domestic dispute between the mother and her boyfriend. The [police service A] were called to the scene. They noted in their Occurrence Report that the mother attacked her boyfriend and hit him several times in the face.

No child were present according to the report. [ 18 ] The mother denied using drugs when confronted by the case worker. In Court, she says that she is unfairly treated by her community members and the [Center A] who thinks that she is under influence even when she is sober. [ 19 ] Since October 6 2017, the mother’s cell phone is disconnected and she is not answering the door to the case worker. She doesn’t cooperate with the [Center A], neither with the [Center B] of New York. [ 20 ] Her Addictions Response Worker tried to contact her several times since the last court order, in vain.

The mother also stopped her psychological follow-up as to her medication for her depression and borderline condition. [ 21 ] The mother did not ask to see X for three month. She says that she suffers from depression and anxiety. Moreover, she talks to him by phone or technological way each week. [ 22 ] X understands that his mother has a drinking and drugs problems and that she needs help. He misses her and wants to visit her. [ 23 ] The father hired a lawyer to move forward with a final custody order for X. It is not clear if the father’s intention is to take charge of his son or to let him with his grandmother.

Analysis [ 24 ] For years now, the mother lives a transient lifestyle and struggles with an addiction problem. She goes in and out of treatment, stay sober for a few weeks and relapses. She also faces mental health issues and violent behaviors. [ 25 ] The mother is obviously fragile physically and mentally. For months now, she does not follow her psychiatric advises or treatment.

She is not constant in her addiction follow-up and stops collaborate with the [Center A] worker. [ 26 ] Regarding her visitations with X, she says that she has no way to travel to City A: she doesn’t drive and her family members have other things to do than to drive her and supervise visitation. [ 27 ] She asks the father or the [Center A] to take charge of the transportation.

She argues that the father first used to come in City B once or twice a month and that it is in the [Center A]’s mission to take her to City A or to bring X to her. [ 28 ] The mother has to stop asking others and take her responsibility if she wants to stay in contact with her son. [ 29 ] The mother needs help for transportation to make sure that X will keep contacts with her, but she also has to show her motivation and make an effort of her own. [ 30 ] The Court agrees with the father’s lawyer when he says “It is time for the parents, the adults, to make sacrifices for the child”.

[ 31 ] It is not to X to travel for each visitation. The mother will have to find a way to come to see him in City A on one on two visitations under the supervision of the paternal grandmother who is willing to open her door to the mother, or a third person designated by the Director. [ 32 ] The father offers to drive X one way, every other Saturday.

The Court doesn’t ask more to the father than what he is willing to do if he asks him to travel the child both way, but only for one contact out of two. [ 33 ] On those occasions, X will see his mother in City B, under the supervision of a person designated by the Director. [ 34 ] After receiving the admissions, after considering the reports produced, the testimony heard and the child’s interest, the Court believes that the situation adduced in evidence gives rise to protective measures.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 35 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 36 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X still in danger; [ 37 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on July 17, 2017; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be following agreement between the parties. In the absence of agreement, these contacts will take place on Saturdays, every two weeks.

The transportation will be assumed by both parents one after the other and so on: ➢ First visit: The mother will have to go to City A by public transportation or any other means she can find to see the child at City A, for three (3) hours, under the supervision of a third person designated by the D.Y.P; ➢ Second visit: The father will assume the child’s transportation from City A to City B both ways, for the child to see his mother at City B, for three (3) hours, under the supervision of a third person designated by the D.Y.P; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother start her visits on March 3, 2018 and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that she agrees; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the D.Y.P buy the bus ticket for the mother so that she can exercise her visitation rights to the child at City A; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to notify the D.Y.P 48 hours before the date she will exercise her visitation rights; [ 42 ] MAINTAINS all other conclusions rendered on July 17, 2017 not inconsistent with the present judgment, namely: [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child remain with his paternal grandmother, Mrs.

C; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be following agreement between the parties; [ 45 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered namely, their respective addiction worker program, the DYP Worker, the [Center B] worker and follow their recommendations; [ 46 ] AUTHORIZES the paternal grandmother, Mrs.

C, to sign the authorizations required for medical, dental, educational, extracurricular, recreational and travel purposes if there is an emergency, if the parents are not reachable within 48 hours; [ 47 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 48 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 49 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the present Court order will be registered in the state of New York for the co-execution of these measures by the [Center B] in New York; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 51 ] THE WHOLE , until June 30, 2018.

Signed on March 8 2018 _________________________________ FRANCINE GENDRON, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Simon Primeau-Laganière D.Y.P.’s Lawyer Mtre . Marie-Pierre Blouin Child’s Lawyer Mtre. Kathleen O’Meara Mother’s Lawyer Mtre. Giancarlo Di Pietro Father’s Lawyer Hearing Date : February 23, 2018