2019 QCCQ 9296, 2019 QCCQ 9296

Protection de la jeunesse — 19318 2019 QCCQ 9296 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 550-41-002279-162 DATE: January 3 rd , 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X Child and A Mother and B Father (deceased) ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 75, 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 Court is seized of a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking the extension of the decision rendered by this Court on September 29 th , 2017 in relation to the situation of X, now aged 6. [ 3 ] On that date, Judge Marie Pratte ordered that the child be maintained in a foster family for a period of three months, with a gradual reintegration into his mother’s environment starting immediately.

Judge Pratte also ordered specific measures concerning the contacts between the child and his paternal grandparents, bearing in mind their important role in the life of their grandson and the difficulties in their relationship with the mother. [ 4 ] The Director is seeking the extension of Judge Pratte’s ruling and is recommending that X be maintained in his mother’s care, with a social follow-up for the next six months. [ 5 ] The mother is present and has elected to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel.

She admits all the alleged facts in support of the motion and agrees that the case worker’s report as well as the update he provided at Court offer an accurate depiction of the situation; she does offer some precisions which I will address below. She is in agreement with all the measures as recommended by the Director.

The child’s counsel is acting under a legal mandate. [ 6 ] The Director recognizes the mother’s efforts and progress over the last two years to address most of the motives in support the Director’s past involvement (unreasonable methods of upbringing, exposure to family violence and risk of harm due to the mother’s mental health problems). [ 7 ] The mother’s situation remains fragile, however, and her ability to ensure that the child is attending school on a regular basis is now raising new concerns. The child started school a week late in the fall of 2018, which the mother says is because she was told several

times to register him to different schools. In addition, X has missed many days of school since the beginning of the year, he is often late and was also picked up late after school. The school further reports that his learning and behaviour are regressing. The situation has stabilized a bit since the child integrated a new school in Town A, but he still misses school on average one day a week.

Starting this month, X will have a tutor to assist with schoolwork. [ 8 ] The family moved from Town B to Town A in early December, following a violent incident involving their former landlord, who allegedly showed up at their apartment with other men to make trouble and beat up the mother’s partner.

While this matter is currently before another Court, the Director’s assessment is that while the child unfortunately witnessed the incident, the mother and her partner are not to blame. [ 9 ] The case worker raises suspicion as to whether the mother may be subject to domestic violence at the hand of her partner, the mother having exhibited a black eye on two occasions over the last few months. The mother argues that the first injury occurred on the workplace (they owns a roofing company and routinely works on the construction sites) while the second happened when she fell down the stairs.

She firmly denies being subjected to violence at home. As to the child, says that there are sometimes conflicts at home, but denies having witnesses any violence. At this point, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the child is exposed to domestic violence. [ 10 ] In addition to the mother’s difficultly in ensuring the child’s regular school attendance, the evidence shows that both she and her partner, Mr. C, would benefit from support services in order to improve their parental skills.

Both of them confirmed their willingness to do so. [ 11 ] The evidence shows that the child values the relationship with Mr. C and that given the appropriate services, he can plan a positive role in the child’s life. In his testimony, Mr. C revealed that he is already involved with the Director of Youth Protection in relation to his 2 year-old son, who is currently living with his grandparents. He says he has access to him and is allowed to babysit him unsupervised.

Needless to say, the Director will need to pay close attention to the situation. [ 12 ] Insofar as the length of the measures is concerned, the child’s counsel points out that six months may be a little short in order for the mother and her partner to receive the required services with regard to their parental skills. Extending the measures by another month would also allow an assessment of the child’s situation following the end of the school year.

All parties are in agreement. [ 13 ] THEREFORE THE COURT : [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child remains endangered; [ 16 ] EXTENDS the decision rendered on September 29 th , 2017 by Judge Marie Pratte; [ 17 ] ORDERS the following protective measures for a period of seven months;

a) That the child be entrusted to his mother;

b) That the child attend school on a regular basis;

c) That the contacts between the child and his paternal grandparents be as agreed between the parties and if no such agreement can be reached, that they take place every other Sunday for a duration of five hours;

d) That the mother collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection in the elaboration and implementation of the intervention plan;

e) That the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she is applying to put an end to the situation that endangers the security and development of the child;

f) That a person working for the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A (CISSS

A) provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother and her partner, Mr. C, undertake to receive services to improve their parental skills – such as those provided by the CISSS A’s [Program A] – and TAKES NOTICE of their willingness and commitment to do so; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. Signed on January 7 th , 2019. __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. Mtre. Laura Normandin Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Marie-Christine Fournier represented by Me Claude Dostie

Counsel for the child Date of hearing: January 3 rd , 2019.