2019 QCCQ 9740, 2019 QCCQ 9740

Protection de la jeunesse — 199367 2019 QCCQ 9740 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 550-41-003213-186 DATE: November 5 th , 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X Child A B In their capacity as parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 in relation to the situation of the child X, aged 3. The Director of Youth Protection is seeking the revision and extension of the decision rendered by this Court on October 30 th , 2018. [ 2 ] On that date, the undersigned declared the child’s security and development to be endangered as a result of situation of physical neglect and entrusted her to the maternal great-grandparents Mr. C and Mrs.

D for a period of nine months, with aid, counsel and assistance for the next twelve months. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking to maintain the child under the care of her maternal great-grandparents for the next 6 months followed by a reintegration into her mother’s environment.

The Director also proposes some amendments to the contact modalities between the child and her father. [ 4 ] In support of the motion, the Director alleges that the child is evolving positively and that the mother’s situation has improved in that she is keeping her new apartment clean, has begun receiving some of the recommended services and is assiduous in her visits with the child.

The mother’s mental health, however, remains unstable and a source for concern. [ 5 ] As to the father, the Director alleges that he has moved three times over the last year, has only seen the child sporadically over this period and has not undertaken any of the recommended follow-ups. [ 6 ] The mother is present and represented by counsel.

She admits all of the facts alleged in support of the motion that relate to her own situation, adding that she will finally be seeing her mental health professional on November 12, 2019 (two years in the waiting); the mother recognises that she is not in a position to take care of her daughter on a full-time basis at the moment and agrees with the recommended measures. [ 7 ] The father is present and represented by counsel; he admits all of the facts relating to his own situation and agrees with the Director’s recommendations while noting that he wishes to see his daughter more often and that his understanding of the recommended measures is that this is only a minimum.

The child is represented by her counsel, who is acting under a legal mandate given her young age. [ 8 ] The evidence reveals that the child is indeed doing well under her great-grandparents’ care. She is attending daycare and developing normally. She sees her mother on a daily basis and has sleepovers twice a week. The mother offers excellent collaboration and is applying the skills learned during her parenting classes. While the relationship between the mother and the great-grandparents is

sometimes difficult, they are able to make things work with the assistance of the social practitioner. [ 9 ] The father is currently seeing his daughter once a week. The social practitioner is not opposed to increasing visits although she expresses concerns with regards to such visits taking place at the father’s residence.

In that regard, she notes that the father relies on friends for transport, that his latest residence is undergoing renovations and is situated quite a ways from the nearest hospital, which raises concerns given that the child was recently involved in a 4-wheeler (ATV) incident while under her father’s care. [ 10 ] The evidence reveals that the incident happened while the father was slowly driving a child’s ATV in his back yard while holding the child between his legs. The ATV’s engine malfunctioned, causing it to catch fire; the father immediately jumped off the ATV with the child in his arms.

The child suffered a nickel size superficial burn on her leg; she was also quite startled by the incident and is now fearful of fire. The father since got rid of the ATV. [ 11 ] As to the home renovations, the father will soon be installing tiles on the kitchen’s floor and he indicates that the work should be completed in the next month or two.

Nothing in the evidence suggests that such renovations are making the place unsafe, even for a young child. [ 12 ] All parties agree that the child should remain entrusted to her great-grandparents for the next six months and that she thereafter reintegrate her mother’s environment. While the contacts between mother and child do not currently pose problem, the same cannot be said in relation to the father-daughter contacts. [ 13 ] It is clearly in the child’s interest to see both her parents on a regular basis, preferably in their respective home environment.

Given the evidence and the explanations provided by the father, the Court does not conclude that the father’s place of residence is currently inappropriate for the visits. Nevertheless, the father is strongly encouraged to take the necessary steps to receive services in order to improve his parental skills.

This would go a long way in terms of addressing some of the Director’s concerns. [ 14 ] THEREFORE THE COURT : [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child remain endangered; [ 17 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision rendered by this Court on October 30 th , 2018; [ 18 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following protection measures:

a) That the child be entrusted to her maternal great-grandparents Mr. C and Mrs. D for a period of six months and that she thereafter reintegrate her mother’s environment;

b) That the contacts between the child and her mother be determined by agreement between the parties;

c) That the contacts between the chlid and her father be determined by agreement between the parties and TAKES NOTE that a

schedule of contacts will soon be established; in the event that no agreement can be reached, the contacts will take place each Friday from 3 pm until 7 pm;

d) That the parents participate in the elaboration and implantation of the intervention plan and that they report every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection on the evolution of their situation;

e) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a year; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS :

a) That the parents receive services required in order to improve their parental abilities and that they implement the recommendations of the professionals; TAKES NOTE that the mother is currently receiving such services and implementing the recommendations; and ENCOURAGES the father to do likewise;

b) That the mother receive health care services for her mental health; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. Signed on December 10 th , 2019.

__________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. Mtre. Kevin Dupéré Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Marie-Christine Fournier Counsel for the child Mtre. Manon Guitard Counsel for the mother Mtre. Marc Doyon represented by Me André Nault Counsel for the father Date of hearing: November 5 th , 2019