2018 QCCQ 20735, 2018 QCCQ 20735

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811529 2018 QCCQ 20735 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-033876-186 DATE : October 11, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X […], 2010 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38, 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 declare that the security and the development of X are endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide for the child’s basic needs and by failing to ensure the child’s education as well as a serious risk of negligence. [ 2 ] Essentially, the Director alleges that the mother’s unstable and transient lifestyle prevent her from providing basic care to the child and from ensuring the child’s attendance at school.

The father acknowledges that he is not in a position to assume full time care of the child despite these unfortunate circumstances. [ 3 ] The child has been entrusted on a provisional basis to her maternal aunt and considering her progress, the Director proposes to maintain her entrustment for a year with a social follow-up and other corrective measures. [ 4 ] Although absent, the mother is represented by a lawyer who admits, on her behalf, the majority of the allegations.

She consents to the measures proposed but requests a clarification of the Director’s intent regarding contact with her child. [ 5 ] The father admits the allegations and consents to the measures as proposed. [ 6 ] The attorney for the child supports the Director’s position. The State of Endangerment [ 7 ] The family is previously known to youth protection services. The child has been the subject of three prior court orders resulting from negligence.

The final order was allowed to expire on May 9, 2016 considering that the mother had demonstrated the ability to adequately care for her daughter’s needs on a consistent basis. [ 8 ] At the time, the mother was the child’s primary caregiver and the parents had amicably concluded a visitation agreement for the father. [ 9 ] Between January 16, 2018 and February 22, 2018, the Director retained three signalements alleging negligence similar to the difficulties previously identified during the prior intervention.

The investigation that followed confirmed the following: - The mother has reverted back to a transient lifestyle, having been evicted from her home;

- The child has a poor school attendance record (less than 50%) as a result of her unstable housing situation; - The mother delegated the responsibility of caring for the child to the maternal aunt in November of 2017; - The mother has had only sporadic contact with the aunt and the child since then; - The mother has provided little financial support for the care of the child despite the aunt’s limited means; - The father is unable to provide regular financial support for the child’s needs; - The father is unable to assume custody of the child; - The parents have failed to provide the child with a valid Medicare card and a basic medical follow-up. [ 10 ] The father maintains fairly regular contact with the child but assumes a minimal parental role.

He expresses concerns about his daughter’s situation but states that he is not in a position to assume her custody as a result of inadequate space in his home. [ 11 ] The father explains that he was initially unaware of the mother’s difficulties since communication between the two is limited. According to the father, the mother is often hostile towards him when they speak. Since becoming aware of the problems with school, the father has become more involved in trying to settle accumulated school debts.

He acknowledges not being able to provide regular financial support for the care of his daughter but states that he does what he can. [ 12 ] From the evidence, the court concludes that the parents were unable to provide for the child’s basic needs and were obligated to rely on an extended family member to ensure that the child was housed and fed appropriately. Moreover, this unstable situation led to a poor attendance record, leaving the child’s education at risk.

The child’s academic struggles are a direct result of the situation as described. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence as a whole, including the admissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the security and development of the child are endangered for the reasons alleged by the Director. The Measures [ 14 ] Since her entrustment to the aunt, the child has been progressing well. Having transferred to a school closer to her aunt’s home, attendance is no longer an issue.

Although she continues to struggle academically, she is adjusting well to her new school. [ 15 ] The child’s basic needs are met in her current environment although the home is small and cluttered. The aunt is generally cooperative with social services and is striving to make the changes requested to render the home more suitable for the number of people residing therein. Nevertheless, the child enjoys being with her aunt and cousins and has considerably benefitted from this arrangement. That being said, she is significantly affected by her mother’s absence and a referral for art therapy has been made.

Other therapeutic options are currently being explored while waiting for these services to become available. [ 16 ] According to the aunt, the child’s behaviour is gradually improving after having initially displayed a certain degree of opposition and defiance. The aunt continues to work on her parenting skills in order to better manage the child’s reactions to structure and discipline. Sustained support and monitoring by the Director is required to ensure the child’s wellbeing. [ 17 ] To date, the mother has been uncooperative and hostile with social services.

Moreover, she has failed to meet with the social worker if only to arrange for visitation. On one recent occasion, she appeared unannounced at the aunt’s home without authorization. Other than that, contact has been practically non-existent. [ 18 ] In the child’s interest, the mother is encouraged to collaborate with social services. Her daughter’s interest requires stable and consistent contact that can only be achieved with a measure of cooperation on the mother’s part, something she has yet to demonstrate. The child is emotionally affected by the mother’s absence and is in need of reassurance.

On the other hand, the mother is not entitled, in this context, to determine unilaterally when she can see her daughter. She must understand that a proper meeting to discuss the issue is mandatory in order for contacts to resume. [ 19 ] The father is currently seeing the child every second weekend. Since his home is too small to accommodate the child overnight, the visits take place alternately at each paternal grandparent’s home. This arrangement also allows the father to benefit from their support as he tends to struggle with his parental role.

Nevertheless, he expresses the desire and intent to increase his involvement with his daughter.

The father is invited to actively pursue this objective. [ 20 ] After considering all of the evidence, and taking into account the position of the parties, the Court concludes that the measures proposed by the Director are in the child’s best interest. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are endangered as a result of negligence by failing to provide to the child’s basic needs as well as negligence by failing to provide appropriate support and supervision, failing to insure the child’s education and serious risk of negligence; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her maternal aunt C; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her father be determined by agreement between the parties and failing agreement, ORDERS that the frequency and modality of these contacts be determined by the Director;

[ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the contacts between the child and her father will be encouraged; [ 27 ] SUSPENDS contacts between the child and her mother; such contacts will be re-established once the mother has participated in three consecutive social follow-up meetings in order to ascertain her sobriety and stability and from that point on, ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director, including supervision if necessary; [ 28 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of his intention to do so, RECOMMENDS that the father participate in parenting classes; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother take steps to stabilize her situation, specifically with regards to housing and substance abuse, and that she keeps the delegate informed of the steps taken towards those objectives; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child continue to receive the health and therapeutic services required; [ 31 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority pertaining to health, education, leisure and travel, including obtaining a passport and GRANTS this exercise to the father; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother be informed whenever the attributes are exercised by the father; [ 33 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parties’ consent, AUTHORIZES that the Director obtain information from professionals working from the family; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family, including the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On October 29, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Sylvie Piriou Attorney for the child Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the mother Me Guy-Luc Grondin Attorney for the father Dates of hearing: July 3 and October 11 2018