2017 QCCQ 5127, 2017 QCCQ 5127

Protection de la jeunesse — 172317 2017 QCCQ 5127 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032360-174 DATE : April 25, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2014 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 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 April 25, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the parents failed to provide the child with the appropriate supervision or support and that there is a serious risk that the parents are not providing for the child’s basic needs. [ 3 ] Since October 26, 2015, the child’s situation has been followed by the Director under a Voluntary Measure Agreement.

On February 4, 2016, the Voluntary Measure Agreement was modified in order for the child to be placed in a foster family. [ 4 ] On March 30, 2017, the Tribunal ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the child in a foster family for a maximum period of 30 days. [ 5 ] Today the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted in a foster family and that support measures be ordered for a period of six months. [ 6 ] The father agrees for the child to remain in a foster family but would like that the child’s reintegration to his care occurs as soon as possible. [ 7 ] The mother presents with the same position as the father on the recommendations. [ 8 ] The child’s lawyer agrees with the Director’s proposition.

Question in litigation [ 9 ] Are the proposed measures respecting the child’s rights and her best interest? Context and Analysis [ 10 ] In October 2015, support was given to the parents in order for the child and her brother, Y, to remain in the family home. The

children were witness to verbal arguments between the parents. The home was dirty. At times, the father was leaving the children unsupervised while he was smoking a cigarette on the balcony. [ 11 ] On February 2, 2016, marks were observed on Y. Y informed the youth protection worker that the mother pushed him. The next day, the mother grabbed Y’s face in order to get his attention. This led to bruising on the child.

The same day, the youth protection worker was informed by the police that the father was with X at McDonald’s and that he fell asleep (sugar crash), leaving the child unattended. [ 12 ] Following these events, on February 4, 2016, new Voluntary Measures were signed. Y was placed with his aunt, Ms. C and X was placed in a foster family for a period of one month. [ 13 ] On March 4, 2016, the child’s placement in a foster family was extended for a period of nine months. [ 14 ] In October 2016, the child had to be hospitalized.

The father was unable to see to her needs as he suffered from a severe panic attack. [ 15 ] In November 2016, the parents separated and the father moved into his own apartment in City A, next door to Ms. C and Y. [ 16 ] On December 9, 2016, the child’s placement was again extended for a period of four months. [ 17 ] Since the children’s first placement, the father showed great motivation to follow through on the recommendations made by the Director. [ 18 ] The father joined an anger management course and attended two parenting courses. He has been medically followed and started taking medication for his anxiety.

He collaborated with weekly services from an educator. Despite his best efforts, his ability to consistently care for the child remain somewhat problematic. [ 19 ] The mother has shown resistance and has not collaborated fully with the youth protection worker.

She still struggles with hoarding issues, anger and implementing proper structure for the child and her brother. [ 20 ] On occasions, the parents were not transparent with the youth protection worker regarding contacts between the child and the mother. [ 21 ] At the end of January 2017, the father left the child with a stranger at a bus stop for a couple of minutes so that he could run across the street quickly. [ 22 ] In February 2017, the child spent a week and a half without shoes at the daycare as the father had misplaced her shoes. [ 23 ] Given these recent incidents, the parents’ ongoing conflicts and the ambivalence about their relationship, the child’s progressive reintegration to her father’s care was slowed down.

The child is currently having three nights per week with her father and visit on Sundays with her mother at the father’s place. [ 24 ] During the hearing, the youth protection worker testified and mentioned that the father needs to collaborate fully with the Director. He needs to listen to the suggestions made regarding the child’s care and ensure that the child has a regular routine.

The father also testified and mentioned that he would continue his medical follow up for his anxiety; that he would collaborate with the educator and follow up with the therapy at the CLSC. [ 25 ] The child has been thriving in the same foster family since the beginning of her placement period in February 2016. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child remain in a foster care for a period of six months; [ 29 ] TAKES ACT that the intention of the Director of Youth Protection is for the child to remain in the same foster family for the next six months; [ 30 ] ORDERS that frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] TAKES ACT that actually the child has contacts with her mother on Sundays at the father’s place and that the child has three overnights per week with her father; [ 32 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father continue taking his medication for anxiety as long as deemed necessary; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that their respective home environment is clean, safe and secure for the child; [ 34 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents continue to collaborate with an educator for as long as deemed necessary and follow through with the recommendations being made; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to any physical and/or verbal violence;

[ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father follow through with the recommendations of his parental capacity assessment completed by Doctor Cloutier; [ 37 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother complete an anger management program and seek individual therapy; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months; [ 40 ] 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.

Signed on May 3, 2017 /cd Mtre Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Jean-Marc Pham Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the father Date of hearing: April 25, 2017