2020 QCCQ 12878, 2020 QCCQ 12878

Protection de la jeunesse — 209459 2020 QCCQ 12878 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 755-41-003095-190 DATE: November 10, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- X, born [...], 2018 Child -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Section 95 (1) (2) of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) petitions the Court with an Application for revision and prolongation of a Court Decision, according to section 95 (1) (2) of the Youth Protection Act , in the matter of the child X. [ 2 ] The hearing of this Application is held jointly with the Application of Y , born [...] , 2013 and Z , born on [...] , 2013 . [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the situation of the children necessitates the revision and the prolongation of the Court Order rendered on November 28, 2019, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 4 of the motion. [ 4 ] The Director recommends, as key measures, that Y and Z remain entrusted to a foster family and as for X that he be entrusted to the parents.

The Director also recommends a follow up for a duration of six (6) months.

Situation and Analysis [ 5 ] The children remain in their foster family since the last court order and they evolve positively. [ 6 ] The twins are in a specialized school in relation with their diagnosis. [ 7 ] As for X , although he does not have any diagnosis and evolves well in his foster family, evidence show that his reactions can be important, as he sometimes hurts himself or hits and pinches others when he does not have what he wants. [ 8 ] The children benefit from visits with their parents on a regular basis. [ 9 ] Evidence show that the visits are positive, but the parents are more tired and passive at the end of the visits.

It is also difficult for the parents to share their attention with all three children. [ 10 ] It was hard for the parents to engage the changes expected concerning the apartment, as it remained cluttered and dirty for a while. Eventually, the parents managed to do the necessary changes and to maintain it in time, although it is still not perfect as of yet. [ 11 ] But most of all, the parents finally diminish their consumption of cannabis and are doing their follow-ups with Virage .

The father was very reluctant to recognize his consumption as a problem at first, but now realises the negative impacts on the children. [ 12 ] Since last June 2020, visits occur in the parents’ home and the supervision was gradually lifted.

[ 13 ] The mother is implicated in her follow-up for her mental health issues and the father continue his with his probation agent. [ 14 ] The father is also continuing his schooling. [ 15 ] An educator supports the parents with the supervised visits, but also with improving their parental skills. [ 16 ] Both parents collaborate with the Director and always receive the comments and suggestions with an open mind, although the father was reluctant at first concerning his drug consumption. [ 17 ] Although the situation remains fragile and the improvements are recent, the Court agrees with the Director that X can be entrusted to his parents.

The goal of the intervention is to observe how the parents deal with the child’s return, if they maintain their apartment clean and continue with their respective follow-ups. [ 18 ] As for the twins, it is also the objective to return them in their family milieu, but it is important not to rush things, as they have special needs and also to take the necessary time to observe how the situation will evolve with X’s return.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 21 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the judgment rendered on November 28, 2019; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his parents; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child’s parents report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform her of the current situation; [ 26 ] ENTRUST the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of a period of six (6) months. __________________________________ CHRISTEL D’AUTEUIL-JOBIN, J.C.Q.

M e Pascale Boucher Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Karine Pichette Attorney for the mother M e Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 10, 2020