2018 QCCQ 17379, 2018 QCCQ 17379

Protection de la jeunesse — 188413 2018 QCCQ 17379 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 33798-182 Date: August 14, 2018 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2017 [Social Worker 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of August 14, 2018, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A filed an Application to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a ten month-old child, based on the serious risk of neglect to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The Court was also presented with a similar application regarding the child’s half-sibling whose situation is addressed in a separate judgment. [ 4 ] The facts alleged in support of the application dated April 5, 2018 are as follows: 3.1. as relevant background information, Y [the child’s half-sister] was the subject to decisions of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division due to parental lifestyle, as it appears more fully from decisions in file #525-41-022969-109, filed herein; 3.2. as relevant background information, Y is the subject of an Agreement on Voluntary Measures due to issues of neglect, instability of the home environment, school absenteeism, as it appears more fully from the Agreement on Voluntary Measures which expire on April 5, 2018; 3.3. there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the child’s basic needs with respect to food, clothing, hygiene or lodging, taking physical health into account their resources, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the mother has a history of instability including a past history of substance abuse;

b) the family has a history of instability and have moved four (4) times in the last year;

c) the mother does not have a Medicare card for Y who has specific medical needs as she is diagnosed with genetic deletion which requires medical follow up which she has not been getting;

d) the mother did not realize she was pregnant with X until seven (7) months into the pregnancy;

e) the mother said that she agreed to work voluntarily with social services, however she has repeatedly failed to follow through and repeatedly failed to be present at meetings and to return phone calls;

f) the mother reports that she has been depressed for the last few months, however she did not seek help to address this difficulty;

g) B, father of X, is absent from the home, out of town, for his work half the time;

h) concerns exist that X’s needs have been neglected as he was diagnosed with plagiocephaly as a result of too much time spent in a car seat and his appointment for a special helmet last week was missed;

i) Y has not attended school consistently; 3.4. educator services were offered but the mother is refusing despite the her difficulty in establishing a routine; 3.5. adjudication is required to ensure the child’s needs are met in a timely fashion (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 5 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to his parents, with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of one year. [ 6 ] The parents, who chose to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel, denied many of the facts alleged in support of the application.

For example, they explained that the mother realized she was pregnant after five months, not seven and that the father is away for work for three weeks every three months which allows him to be very involved with his son most of the time and to earn enough to support the family. He is aware of the mother’s past substance abuse. Both parents consented to all the proposed measures and agreed to collaborate with social services.

The mother only objected to the proposed length of the order, arguing that six months would be sufficient to ensure that all services were effectively in place to prevent any risk of neglect to her son. [ 7 ] Me Lafortune, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-7 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate; D-2: Voluntary measures agreement; D-3: Court judgments rendered by Honorable Taya di Pietro (en liasse); D-4: Court Report, written by Emilie Ann Martin, dated May 17, 2018; D-5: Death certificate of C; D-6: Neuropsychological Report, written by Dr.

Miglena Grigorova, no dated; D-7: Addendum, written by Emilie Ann Martin, dated August 7, 2018. [ 9 ] In

summary, the application is not contested and the parents are not opposed to collaborating with social services. [ 10 ] The parents have recently decided to move to British-Colombia where the mother feels she will benefit from a healthier lifestyle as well as the support of many members of her extended family. [ 11 ] The parents undertake to fully collaborate in allowing social services in Quebec and British-Colombia to exchange information to ensure that their son’s needs are met and that any risk of neglect is averted. [ 12 ] The mother suggested that six months would be sufficient whereas the Director of Youth Protection recommended a period of one year. [ 13 ] As a one year period was initially recommended in the Director of Youth Protection’s report dated May 17, 2018, the Court concluded that nine months from the date of the hearing would be sufficient to ensure that necessary services are in place following the family’s move. [ 14 ] Consequently, given the evidence and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the application is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under section 38 (2) (

b) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD 'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his parents;

[ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents attend psychoeducation/parenting classes to enhance their parenting skills; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure the child’s medical needs are met; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be not exposed to any drug use or violence; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents work with an educator and follow the recommendations; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother obtain therapeutic services for herself (counselling, medical follow up, support regarding substance abuse), if needed; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain relevant information from the professionals involved with the family, including the Clinique du Dr Julien, MUHC, CLSC as well as social services of British Colombia; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

Signed on August 17, 2018 TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Valérie Lafortune Attorney for the child TD/vl