2016 QCCQ 16928, 2016 QCCQ 16928

Protection de la jeunesse — 167838 2016 QCCQ 16928 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000500-154 DATE: November 9, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2003 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 revise and extend the order rendered on February 8, 2016 in respect of the child. Her sister is aimed by the same application. The parties agree to present a common proof. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the father is present but not represented; he wishes to proceed without counseling. He mostly does not admit the facts, and he is not in agreement with the recommendations of the DYP.

However, he consents to the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their authors. He wishes that both of his daughters be back living with him. [ 3 ] The mother is not present even if the application was duly served to her. [ 4 ] The child is present and represented. Her counsel also expresses his consent with the filing of the report to value the testimony of their authors. She agrees with some allegations but denies some of them also.

However, she disagrees with the recommendations of the DYP because she wishes to go live with her father. [ 5 ] The family had been receiving services for the past five years because the parents have a dysfunctional relationship. [ 6 ] The child is 13 years old and has some difficulties. Because of behavioural problem, she was removed for her previous foster family. Since March 2016, she is living in a new family in which she is doing very well.

She has a good relationship with them, and they learned to trust her. [ 7 ] For over a year, the child has been receiving services from a counsellor with whom she has a good bond and seems to enjoy it. She also continues to participate actively at her meetings with her external educator. She collaborates properly with the services. [ 8 ] Between June 14 and July 14, 2016, she attended a treatment program in Walgwan in which her involvement was positive. At the time, she was thinking of attending the three-month program.

However, at the hearing, she states that she changed her mind. [ 9 ] Regarding her academic situation, she has difficulties with her schoolwork and with her teacher. Since the foster family got involved in this situation, some modifications had occurred. She changed her behaviour and her motivation increased permitting her to go to the next grade.

[ 10 ] At the hearing, the father asks that his daughter be entrusted to him. He says that he has been separated too long from her. He indicated that since the DYP was involved in their lives, nothing changed or improved in the situation of his daughter. [ 11 ] He admits not having complied with the measures ordered in the last order because all the services or people assuring those services are corrupted. He testifies that he does not need to be better because he is alright the way he is. Recently, he has not been convicted of anything, but he was in the past.

His daughter was taken from him when she was very young. This time, he does not want her to be living with anyone else. [ 12 ] He does not have any contact with his daughter. He states that he tried several times to have visitation but unsuccessfully. He repeats that is because the system is corrupt, and once again he starts with his speech of contestation and injustice done against him. Basically, the child did not see or live with her father for many years. [ 13 ] The father’s behaviour is unpredictable as mention in the psychosocial report, and we can also notice it during his testimony.

He cannot realize that his way of acting out creates dysfunction in the family home nor the impact it has towards his children. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrated that the father does not in anyway collaborate with the services. In court during his testimony, he clearly despises social services and more especially the DYP. He also shows confusion, and it is hard to follow his ideas. He repeats himself often. Furthermore, he does not want to be implicated or comply with any follow up.

He does not see any problem or issue that his daughter has. [ 15 ] The father is not showing any stability and no collaboration what so ever with the professionals or the DYP. Furthermore, he defies the court order providing that the contact had to be previously authorized. Despite that, he decides to make a surprise visit to his daughter in school. Following that event, the child was suspended because of her behaviour. His daughter still has issues to work on, but without the father’s implication, those issues cannot be resolved if she is placed under his care.

Simply, because he does not believe she has any trouble. [ 16 ] Moreover, he is not willing himself to do anything about his own issues. It will be impossible for him to help his daughter the way she needs it, because of the fact, that he denies any problem regarding her behaviour or issue. This attitude also influences his daughter in a negative way and makes her less implicated with the services from which a certain improvement was noticed. [ 17 ] During her testimony, the child expresses her wish to stay with her father.

She explains that since she has not been living with her father for a long time, she would like to be with him now. She denies having a drug problem since October 2015, but she used too. She mentions that she changed since the last court order. [ 18 ] While the child is testifying, we can easily notice that she is using the same kind of language that of her father. It shows that maybe he has some real influence on her.

She even shows aggressiveness towards her own lawyer when questioned by him. [ 19 ] The child still needs to pursue her follow up with a psychological and addiction's services to help her with her emotions. The evidence shows clearly that, for the time being, the father is not able to give her the help and assistance she requires. Moreover, he denies that his daughter has an addiction problem.

It is obvious that he will not support her to that regard because he does not trust any services. [ 20 ] The mother collaborates minimally with the services and does not follow any of the recommendations of the last court order. [ 21 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. The Court considers that the DYP has established, through preponderant evidence, that the application is well-founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application for revision of order; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until June 30, 2017; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be authorized to attend treatment at the Walgwan Centre for a period of three months if deemed appropriate; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents are determined by agreement between the parties including their supervision as long as deemed necessary; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the child actively participates in psychological counselling to help develop her well-being; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from external services in life skills and extra support; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents benefit from an external educator to teach coping skills, parenting skills and communication skills; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in follow-up with addictions counsellor and treatment if deemed necessary; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put an end to the

situation of endangerment; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2017; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Gaspésie for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the adolescent Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father Date of hearing: October 5, 2016