2019 QCCQ 11462, 2019 QCCQ 11462

Protection de la jeunesse — 191865 2019 QCCQ 11462 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-033299-173 DATE : March 11, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2009 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on March 11, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on February 6, 2018. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the mother’s care and that diverse support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 4 ] The parents and the child’s attorney are in agreement with the Director’s plan.

Question in litigation [ 5 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 6 ] The child is thriving in the mother’s care. The mother has continued to collaborate with the Director. She received therapeutic services from the CLSC. [ 7 ] Divorce and custody proceedings are not yet filed in Superior Court. [ 8 ] The father has not yet addressed his mental health and anger management issues.

In February 2018, he attended one session at the A Clinic. [ 9 ] The Director was under the impression that, since February 2018, the father remained uninvolved with the child. [ 10 ] From March to September 2018, the father did not contact the youth protection worker. [ 11 ] In June 2018, the father was arrested near the mother’s home for failure to comply with conditions from a court order.

[ 12 ] In September 2018, the mother and the child moved to a new apartment.

The mother was asking the Director for this address to remain confidential to the father. [ 13 ] On October 2, 2018, the father undertook to abstain from being within a radius of 200 metres from the mother, unless with her consent. [ 14 ] On October 5, 2018, the father returned to the A Clinic and placed his name on a waiting list to receive psychological assessment and mental health services from the CLSC. [ 15 ] In November 2018, the youth protection worker received information to the effect that the father had been spending time with the mother and the child in their home.

When confronted, the mother initially denied this information but later admitted that, on occasions, the father was in the home, helping her caring for the child. The father reports that, at the time, he was going to the home from Monday to Friday. [ 16 ] Both parents were aware that these contacts were not authorized by the Director of Youth Protection and contravened the Court order. The mother has not been as transparent with the Director as she appeared to be. [ 17 ] Since then, it was clarified by the youth protection worker that the father should not be in the home alone with the child.

Supervised visits between the father and the child were organized. Supervision is now provided by the paternal uncle and his wife. [ 18 ] The father has yet to complete the steps to stabilize his situation regarding his anger management and mental health issues. He has not been consistently participating in his anger management program. His collaboration with the Director has also been difficult. He decided not to be assessed by the CLSC but go the private route. The Director will need to help the parents in accessing support services and ensuring that the home environment remains safe and stable for the child.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 21 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on February 6, 2018; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child remain entrusted to the care of the mother; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the father refrain from all forms of violence and aggression, including verbal abuse and denigration; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the father take steps to address his personal issues and follow through with ensuing recommendations, and report his progress to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on March 21, 2019 /cd Mtre François Marchand Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Sylvie Piriou Counsel for the child Date of hearing: March 11, 2019