2020 QCCQ 10448, 2020 QCCQ 10448

Protection de la jeunesse — 207759 2020 QCCQ 10448 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000501-198 DATE: October 21, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2017 Child -and- A (deceased) -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 8, 2019, in order to entrust the child to the paternal grandmother. Her brother is aimed by the same proceedings and a joint hearing is held. [ 2 ] Since the beginning of the proceedings, the situation of this family has seen several reversals.

First, the DYP asks that the children be entrusted to the paternal grandmother, but new facts emerge and the recommendations were modified so that the children rather be entrusted to a foster family. In June 2020, the hearing begins but, had to be continued at a later date. Regrettably, the mother died before the date set for the continuation of the case. Today, another turnaround as the DYP returns to their initial request and asks that the children be entrusted to the paternal grandmother.

All the parties agree with the recommendations suggested by the DYP except for the father, he asks that we recommend random drug tests instead of ordering them. [ 3 ] In the last ordered measure, some concerns were raised about the paternal grandmother’s environment as mentioned in the judgment [1] . The latter is not always transparent with the professionals. She did not contact the DYP when problems occurred with the children’s parents. She moves a lot and her ability to protect the children is questionable. It was also mentioned that with the proper follow-up and support the situation can be managed.

A few surprise visits were done at her residence and everything was adequate. In the present application for revision, these reproaches against the paternal grandmother are still relevant. Her collaboration with the DYP is mitigated. When asked to provide her criminal record as well as her boyfriend’s, it took forever to get them. She even denies having a recent one. [ 4 ] The paternal grandmother works a lot so either the father, the boyfriend or an orderly man living with them takes care of the children. They are not stimulated they are even neglected.

The children have issues regarding language, weight, lack of certain skills for their age or lack of education. The boyfriend is not very cooperative and upset at times with the DYP visits. They had to make an update with the father and the boyfriend about the surprise visits and their necessity. [ 5 ] The children are often left with people other than the grandmother . During several surprise visits, she is absent. The paternal grandmother was assessed to be a family type resource, but was declined because she did not meet some mandatory criteria.

In fact, the children would never have been entrusted to this environment had it not been for the fact that it was the paternal grandmother. • Parents [ 6 ] The father is not collaborative with the services and does not get very involved regarding, notably, the children’s appointments.

He basically let his mother manage and take care of everything regarding them. However, on many occasions he takes care of them when the grandmother is not there. He denies any problems of consumption of drugs or alcohol and does not take any steps to change his way of life. [ 7 ] Recently, he attended a medical appointment for the children with his mother. He undermines the doctor’s advice regarding education and food, saying “his way is good as well”. He was arrogant, aggressive, defiant and provocative with her even though she was only helping them.

At this time, he also tries to discipline his children which only increases the tension and provokes crises. He does not wish to change anything about what he does regarding the children. Obviously, he could not be left alone without supervision since he does not recognize anything and his behaviour is worrisome. [ 8 ] There are also concerns about his health. He was recently hospitalized and refused treatment. It is unclear what really happened. The father is resistant to the presence of an educator in their lives since he considers that he does not need one.

He blames the mother for the presence of the DYP in his life, without acknowledging his share of responsibility in the current situation. Moreover, the children’s doctor is worried about the father’s behaviour and his ability to manage his emotions as well as his anger. [ 9 ] The mother had a lot of issues as well as health problems, but she recently passed away more precisely on July 18, 2020.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 10 ] After the last Court hearing, knowing the concerns of the Court in regard to the paternal grandmother’s environment, the latter seems to have mobilized and to have taken decisions more centred on the children. Although, the Court decides to entrust the children to the paternal grandmother, despite the shortcomings of this environment, after being assured by the DYP that this environment is the best for them considering the current circumstances. The paternal grandmother follows the children’s doctor recommendation in regard to food and she is willing to meet with a nutritionist.

The children have been on the decline in obesity since their last medical appointment. Moreover, during a meeting with this doctor, she mentioned disturbing events about her son and even mentioned that the children were calmer in the absence of the father. These concerns were also shared with the youth delegate. [ 11 ] During this period, there were other surprise visits at the paternal grandmother’s home. The house is clean and the children have lots of toys. She made renovations to her home to add two bedrooms as promised.

An educator provides services to establishing an appropriate routine, a healthy eating habit and any concerns with attachment issues. She collaborates well with him as well as with the DYP. She follows the recommendations of the professionals. The children will attend daycare soon. [ 12 ] Despite everything, the DYP asks that the children to be entrusted to the paternal grandmother. Without surprise, the Court has some reluctances to follow those recommendations knowing that the situation has changed little.

However, the DYP is of opinion that the paternal grandmother wants to collaborate and she accepts the help of an external educator. She is ready to follow any ordered conclusions and be more transparent. In addition, another very important aspect is the fact that these vulnerable young children have just lost their mother. Withholding them from the only environment, they know would be more harmful to them, despite the shortcomings of their grandmother’s environment. However, services are put in place to manage these shortcomings and to help the family.

The difficulties observed with the children must be closely and constantly monitored. In addition, the DYP will have to keep an eye on the situation to make sure everything is going smoothly and that the paternal grandmother follows all the recommendations. [ 13 ] Nevertheless, there is little room for mistakes.

If she does not mobilize quickly and does not demonstrate stability, other measures would have to be considered for these young children who require a stable, stimulating and reassuring home. • Duration of the measures [ 14 ] About the duration of the measures required by the DYP, the Court concludes that a period of 12 months is too long to assure that the paternal grandmother will mobilize herself. Previously, in the last measure, she was supposed to do numerous things but she did not fulfill these promises. This time, she will have a few months to show that she can properly take care of her grandchildren.

The father will have to take his responsibilities regarding his children and work on his issues before having any unsupervised visits. For all these reasons, the Court believes that some serious changes must occur within the next eight months, otherwise, further measures will have to be considered for the future of these children. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the paternal grandmother, Mrs. C; [ 18 ] ORDERS the contacts between the child and the father be determined according to agreement between the parties and that they are supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child receives all the necessary health and social services required according to their condition; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child, father and Mrs.

C benefit from the services of an external educator; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father submit himself to random drug and alcohol testing; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the father to be sober in the presence of the child; [ 23 ] FORBIDS that the father expose the child to any kind of violence;

[ 24 ] ORDERS that the father report periodically the DYP on the measures he applies in his own regard or in his child’s regard to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the father actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2021; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the father Date of hearing: June 2, June 17, July 7, August 3 and October 6, 2020