2018 QCCQ 20678, 2018 QCCQ 20678

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811472 2018 QCCQ 20678 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-030018-154 DATE : February 5, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born on […], 2015 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on March 29, 2017, declaring that the security and the development of the child X continue to be endangered as a result of a serious risk of negligence as well as psychological ill-treatment and entrusting him to his father with a social follow-up for nine months. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the father continues to require support in his responsibilities as a single father, specifically pertaining to the child’s paediatric services.

Furthermore, even if the mother has markedly improved her situation in the last year, she remains in need of services to help her with her personal issues. [ 3 ] Although the Director was initially proposing to extend the current order for nine months, for the purpose of maintaining the mother’s adherence to the measures, a period of six months is proposed at the hearing. [ 4 ] The majority of the allegations are admitted by the parents who consent to the social follow-up as proposed. [ 5 ] The lawyer representing the child supports the Director’s proposal The Situation [ 6 ] Since the prior judgment, the evidence establishes the following: [ 7 ] The father remains in a subsidized housing complex run by the community based organisation A and obtains their services when needed.

His apartment is clean, safe and his son’s overall needs are met. He continues to cooperate with the CLSC program SIPPE for parents of young children. His participation in the follow-up with youth protection services has been stable and satisfactory. [ 8 ] Although the child’s overall development is positive, he requires both speech and occupational therapy and is currently on a waiting list for both. Meanwhile, he receives individual services to help improve his speech at his daycare. [ 9 ] Overall, the father sees to his responsibilities in an efficient manner.

However, there is concern regarding the fact that the father failed to bring his son to three consecutive medical appointments. His explanations (the child was napping, the father had minor dental issues) are certainly questionable but generally speaking, there are few issues regarding the quality of care that he provides. [ 10 ] The mother has made serious efforts regarding her personal issues, for example, participating in the […] inpatient program A

and completing most but not all of it. She maintains that she no longer consumes alcohol or hard drugs but admits to smoking marihuana on occasion. On the question of her borderline personality disorder, she began taking medication but currently feels that she no longer requires them. Recently however, she has expressed the desire to obtain support services both for her mental health issues as well as her consumption issues. [ 11 ] The mother has been rather consistent in her weekly visits with the child.

The quality of the contact is positive and the mother has proven to be attentive and considerate of the child’s needs. The worker notes however that the mother requires support to structure her time with her son properly. [ 12 ] The mother has secured her own apartment recently and is hoping that visits can eventually take place there with no supervision.

The worker is open to the possibility subject to an inspection of the home and depending on the mother’s ability to demonstrate consistency and structure. [ 13 ] With the support of the social worker, the parents’ have managed to improve their communication and overall relationship. They demonstrate the capacity to collaborate and to behave amicably towards one another in their son’s presence. The mother acknowledges without hesitation that her son is in good hands and wants him to know that his parents can be friends despite no longer being a couple.

Conclusion [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the father is committed to his son’s care and is invested in various community services that provide him with the support that he requires. Although the missed medical appointments suggest some concern, the child’s overall needs are met. [ 15 ] The mother’s efforts regarding her personal issues have led to concrete results. Nevertheless, continued monitoring is required to ensure her continued progress.

This safeguard is necessary considering the extent of her past personal problems and the recent nature of their improvement. [ 16 ] Considering the evidence presented as well as the parties’ consent, the Court concludes that the child’s best interests are met by maintaining him with his father, along with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 18 ] THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child is still endangered; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of his father to the exclusion of the mother; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father finalize custody of the child through Superior Court proceedings; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child’s medical needs be addressed in a timely manner; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of the contact between the child and his mother be determined by the Director; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive mental health support and follow through with her doctor’s recommendations; [ 26 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the Director to exchange pertinent information with relevant professionals in order to ascertain the parents’ progress and attendance; [ 27 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent to do so, ORDERS that he continue to cooperate with the Director and with the community based organizations such as [Organization A] and SIPPE offered by the CLSC; [ 28 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain parental rights in relation to education, health, recreational and travel matters if the mother cannot be reach in due time and GRANTS it to the father; [ 29 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] THE WHOLE for a period of 6 months.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On February 27, 2018

__________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Heidi Lechter Attorney for the D.Y.P. Michèle Robidoux Attorney for the child Lilian Stah Attorney for the mother Karine Dallaire Attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 5, 2018 KO/lf