2013 QCCQ 19921, 2013 QCCQ 19921

Protection de la jeunesse — 138650 2013 QCCQ 19921 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-025214-115 N° : 525-41-025213-117 DATE: November 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on [...], 2009 - and - Y Born on [...], 2011 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of November 5, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . On August 14, 2012, the honourable Marie Archambault ordered that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care at the exclusion of the father for a period of six months along with other measures.

Furthermore, that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • The father returned to the mother’s home in February 2013; • The mother has been doing well in terms of accessing the proper services for the children and to follow through with the recommendations made to her; • In addition to the regular social follow-up provided by the youth protection worker, the mother was also provided with the services of an educator; • During the Spring of 2013, and up to mid-July 2013, the parents reported that their relationship was stable and that they were not experiencing difficulties; • However, on July 16, 2013, a new signalement was retained as founded by the Director of Youth Protection; • It was reported that during the weekend of July 13, 2013, the father took X to the paternal grandparents’ cottage; • The mother then informed the father over the telephone that their relationship was over; • The mother reported to the youth protection worker that father then told her he was going to end his life and X’s life; • The father denies having threatened X’s life, but admits that he said he would jump into traffic;

• Upon meeting with the youth protection worker, the mother admitted that she had lied to the Director of Youth Protection about the situation with the father, more particularly but not restrictively in that: . the mother reports father has a serious alcohol abuse problem and that he drinks six beers a day; . the father denies having an alcohol problem and reports that the mother uses marijuana in the children’s presence; . the mother admits to marijuana use twice per week but never in the children’s presence; . the mother also reports that father is dealing drugs; the father denies this allegation; • The parents continue to have a conflictual relationship; • The father presents as highly impulsive; • During the weekend of July 13, 2013, the police intervened and the father was arrested for a breach of condition; • The father is currently under a restraining order prohibiting contact with the mother. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care at the exclusion of the father and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The father was not present at the hearing and DYP was unable to inform him of the court hearing.

The father has not seen the children since the summer and was not present at the hearing of September 6, 2013. Under the circumstances, and with the consent of the other parties, the Court proceeded in the absence of the father. [ 6 ] The mother admits the facts alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. The mother says that she has ended her relationship with the father. She agrees to continue receiving the services of the educator, Mr.

C. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in the children’s best interest. [ 8 ] The evidence reveals that the parents were not honest with the youth worker and that they were still engaging in conflicts after the father's return to the family home in February 2013. Since the incidents of July 2013, the mother has maintained her decision to end her relationship with the father. [ 9 ] The father’s situation has deteriorated since the last court order. He has not addressed his personal issues or sought counselling for his ADHD.

Furthermore, he has not seen the children over the last months and is currently of address unknown. [ 10 ] The children are doing well in their mother’s care, although the services of the educator are still warranted to help the mother put an adequate routine in place for the children. Both children present with difficulties. X is to receive services for his speech and developmental delays.

As for Y, he must undergo an assessment at the A hospital to assess if he suffers from autism. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their mother’s care at the exclusion of the father. Furthermore, a social follow-up must be provided to the family for a period of one year.

DYP’s involvement with the family is necessary in order to ensure that the children’s needs are met and that their not witness to their parents conflicts. [ 12 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 13 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 15 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 16 ] ORDERS that both children be entrusted to their mother's care to the exclusion of the father; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection under the following conditions: • That all contacts be supervised; • That before any contacts take place the father undergo a psychiatric assessment; • That the father meet the youth delegate on at least two occasions and that the psychiatrist and the DYP consider that the contacts can be re-established; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother take the steps to seek full custody of the children through Superior Court; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the father undergo a psychiatric assessment and follow the recommendations of the psychiatrist; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek individual counselling; [ 21 ] Orders that the mother submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother agrees to undergo random drug testing;

[ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father submit to random drug testing as requested of DYP; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with DYP, to meet with the youth worker when required and to inform them of any change of address or phone number in a delay of 24 hours; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the children attend daycare on a regular basis; [ 25 ] ORDERS that both children receive all health care services required by their situation; [ 26 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that X is on a waiting list from the CLSC to receive services regarding his autism; [ 27 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Y will undergo an assessment at the A Hospital to rule out any autistic spectrum; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the family continue to receive the services of an educator, for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 29 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for a period of one year; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 31 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed November 19, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Luce James Counsel for the children Me Maïa Sureau Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: November 5, 2013