2016 QCCQ 16921, 2016 QCCQ 16921

Protection de la jeunesse — 167831 2016 QCCQ 16921 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000415-167 DATE: October 3, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […[, 2016 Child -and- A -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 declare that the security or development of the child is in danger, because of a serious risk that the child’s parents are not providing her basic needs. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and represented by an attorney.

Even if they denied or ignored some allegations, through their counsel, they agreed with the amended recommendations proposed by the DYP and the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. [ 3 ] The child is absent but duly represented.

Counsel for the child expresses his consent with the amended measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. [ 4 ] The child was born on July 8, 2016, in the hospital located in Chandler. [ 5 ] On July 11, 2016, an immediate protective measure was applied entrusting the child to an institution operating a hospital. At the time, DYP worried about the parental capacities of the parents.

They were concerned for the child’s security and development. [ 6 ] On July 13, 2016, an extension of immediate protective measure was presented entrusting the child to the mother with the condition that she stays with her mother madam A without the father’s child. [ 7 ] On July 20, 2016 an order on a provisional measure entrusted again the child to the mother, as long as she resided with her mother madam A.

Furthermore, the grandmother has to be present during the father’s visitation. [ 8 ] The DYP had concerns with the parents based on the observations mainly witnessed by the medical staff at the hospital when the mother gave birth to her child. It was noticed that the mother seemed to have some comprehension limitations and for the father a certain instability regarding his behavior. [ 9 ] For instance, the parents needed to be woken up at times because they did not have the reflex to feed the baby or to verify if she was hungry.

The father was disinclined to receive instructions on how to feed the baby and change diapers. [ 10 ] The mother is using drugs more specifically marihuana daily even during her pregnancy. The urine of the child tested positive to that substance. The child was in withdrawal requiring her to be treated. The mother stopped consuming after giving birth. There is also apprehension with the mother’s possible intellectual disability.

[ 11 ] The father admits also using. He was described by the hospital staff to be impulsive and unpredictable. He was often upset, talked loudly and pointing at the nurses. The police had to intervene, and he was expelled from the hospital because of is conduct. [ 12 ] The DYP made several surprise visits. Nothing particular was noticed. During bottle-feeding, the father handled the child well, and he did everything correctly. [ 13 ] The mother also was observed taking care of the baby properly. Throughout her after birth follow-up with a nurse, she is always present at the scheduled appointments.

She is in good shape and in a pleasant mood all the time. The mother is more alert and rested than before. [ 14 ] The baby is doing well. She gains weight normally, and she is dressed properly. The child got a virus and was admitted to the hospital, and the mother was appropriate with her child. The parents receive a lot of support from their enlarged family. [ 15 ] In the analysis

section of the psychosocial report, the social worker comes to the following conclusions: “ Also, the mother’s possible intellectual disability, the father’s impulsive and unpredictable temper, his criminal past, a possible controlling dynamic from him towards the mother and X’s extreme vulnerability in regard to her age leaves us concerned about a possible risk of neglect if they take care of X by themselves .” [ 16 ] The maternal grandmother makes serious allegations towards the parents concerning their drug consumption and the way they act with the child when the DYP is not around.

Basically, there’s no sign of neglect in regards of the child. The basic needs of the child are currently answered by the parents with the family support. [ 17 ] The parents are taking steps and getting involved to provide a stable and secure place for their child. The mother participated in many programs with Family ties in order to get some tools.

The father made a request at the Healing lodge to receive services for anger management, and his first appointment has already been scheduled. [ 18 ] However, considering the vulnerability of the child, as mentioned in the psychosocial report, it is impossible, for the moment, to entrust the child to the parents before their parental capacities are assessed in depth, and before they submit themselves to a psychosocial assessment to determine their forces and their weaknesses in order to get the appropriate services, if needed. [ 19 ] They have to make some steps to assure and provide a secure environment for their child.

Moreover, the parents agree with these measures for the time being. [ 20 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child to be in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to Mrs.

C until May 31, 2017 with a progressive integration in her family environment as soon as the situation permits it; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents take place following an agreement between the parties including their supervision by a person designated by the DYP as long as deemed necessary; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the family receives professional assistance through an External Educator for as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 26 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to a parental capacities assessment and a psychological assessment to determine their forces and weaknesses; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take an active

part in the services that are offered to them for their personal difficulties; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random urine drug screening tests; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until May 31, 2017; [ 31 ] 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 Lynn-Ann Smith for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the parents Date of hearing: October 3, 2016 Written judgment filed on November 8, 2016