2023 QCCQ 7421, 2023 QCCQ 7421

Protection de la jeunesse — 231501 2023 QCCQ 7421 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000749-223 DATE : March 30, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X Born on […], 2021 Child and A 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on July 6, 2022, in respect of the child in order to entrust her until majority. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and assisted by their lawyer. They contest the placement until majority.

They ask that a placement measure for a period of 6 months be ordered instead, so that they could demonstrate their ability to assume their parental role. [ 3 ] The evidence presented by the DYP began with the filing of the exhibits with the consent of the parties, supplemented by the testimony of the worker, Ms. [Social Worker 1], who took over the case following the departure of the other worker initially involved with the family. After hearing the testimonial evidence, we know very little about the follow-up carried out by the other worker at the time.

Obviously, given the lack of information regarding the situation, it is not possible at this stage to rule on a majority placement. Given this situation, the parties agreed on a shorter-term measure to assess the parents’ ability to care for the child. [ 4 ] Now, what about the current situation since the last order? [ 5 ] First, it should be noted that the worker, Ms. [Social Worker 1], did not become involved in the case until last February.

She therefore noted that documents were missing and had to make requests to obtain them, such as the psycholegal assessment and opinion regarding parental competencies written by Dr. Bernard Nadeau. [ 6 ] Upon the previous judgment, the child was entrusted to the maternal grandmother. She has lived there since birth. The maternal grandmother can provide a secure, soothing, and loving environment. She makes sure that all her needs are met, and things are going well.

The child develops normally, and she has a strong bond with her maternal grandmother. [ 7 ] The parents have limited and irregular contact with the child. Their last visit was on February 12. They complain that the communication between them and the grandmother is poor and lacking. They wish to have more contact with the child as well as more news from her.

Although they ask for more, the fact is that transportation to and from the visits remain a problem for them. [ 8 ] Since the last measures were ordered, the parents’ situation in general appears to be unchanged and no observations regarding any modification to their lifestyle have been made either. It is difficult to know if the collaboration with the DYP was adequate given the

poor record kept by the previous worker. [ 9 ] Currently, communication with the parents is done through Facebook. The parents do not have a phone, so it is difficult to communicate with them. They chat with the grandmother also through messenger. However, the grandmother does not answer and ignores their messages. The parents do not come to visit their child under the pretext that they do not have a car or the financial means to go to the grandmother’s house to exercise access. However, they are seemingly able to get around for other personal obligations.

The parents live with the paternal grandfather where there is no space or room for the child to live. [ 10 ] In his first encounter with the new worker, the father was very disrespectful and aggressive towards her. However, he eventually adopted a more appropriate behaviour later on. The parents consider that they do not have problems with their parenting and caregiving skills. The father has anxiety problems but refuses to accept any follow-up. [ 11 ] At this point, the parents, although willing to comply with the DYP recommendations, seem to have little understanding of what they mean and what it implies.

They do not recognize any problems with their parenting skills but are quick to blame others involved with the child, such as the maternal grandmother or the DYP. To this day, they struggle to realize the importance of their role as parents. [ 12 ] According to the parenting skills report, it is recommended that the child remain under the care of the maternal grandmother and that the parents work on their bond with the child and engage in follow-ups meant to improve their parenting skills. Furthermore, the mother has poor parenting skills that require support and supervision.

It remains to be seen whether the parents will mobilize as they say. [ 13 ] During this measure, the parents will have to act and make the necessary efforts to demonstrate that they are able to adequately take care of all the needs of their child, who, considering her young age, is very vulnerable. They will have to prioritize her needs over their own. The next few months will be decisive, as the deadline for the placement has already been reached.

If the parents show little involvement, other measures will have to be considered in the longer term, in order to respect the spirit of the Youth Protection Act . [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduced, the absence of contestation from the parents and the position of the child’s lawyer, the application is well founded. Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP are in the child’s best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED VERBALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 17 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 6, 2022; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the kinship foster family of her maternal grandmother, Ms.

C, until March 31, 2024; [ 19 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the parents be determined by agreement between the parties and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober and do not consume in the presence of the child; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents involve themselves in a follow-up related to their personal difficulties; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from external educator services; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until March 31, 2024; [ 25 ] 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; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parties concerned by this order to comply with it. ______________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child

Me Alexis Deschênes for the parents Written judgment filed on April 12, 2023.