2011 QCCQ 11979, 2011 QCCQ 11979

Protection de la jeunesse — 114251 2011 QCCQ 11979 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-021924-097 DATE: September 6, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2009 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 6, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for revision of an order rendered January 7, 2011, entrusting the child to foster care for a period of four months with reintegration to the mother’s care during this period.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained with the family until October 1, 2011. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • Since December 2, 2010, the mother has been living on her own, with the child and siblings being gradually reintegrated to her care; • On May 1, 2010, the child was reintegrated to the mother’s care; • Through the help of an educator, the mother has been focusing on improving her parental skills and addressing the child’s needs; • The mother demonstrates difficulty in managing the child’s needs and rivalry between the siblings; • The biological father has not completed a substance abuse treatment program; • The biological father has regular contacts with the child. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of

six months. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion, but is asking for the file to be closed. The mother testifies that she has participated in a number of programs and that a social follow-up is no longer required. The mother says that she is now on speaking terms with Mr. B and that they are now capable of deciding when he can see X. [ 6 ] Mr. B admits the majority of the fact alleged in the motion and agrees with the recommended measures. He consents to receive the services of the educator from the A Program.

He admits that he has not participated in a substance abuse program or an anger management program. [ 7 ] Counsel for the child considers that it is in X’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of six months. Me Benoit considers that the family still needs the services of an educator. [ 8 ] The Court also read the Court report and the Addendum to the Court report the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the mother has regained custody of her four children.

However, the mother has stated that X displays aggressive behaviours and that there is rivalry between the siblings. Although the mother has demonstrated gains in her parenting skills ongoing support and services are still needed to ensure that the child’s needs are met. [ 9 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of six months.

The parents must also learn co-parenting in the best interest of their daughter. [ 10 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to the care of her mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her biological father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr.

B take the necessary steps in order for his name to appear as the father on the child’s birth certificate; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Mr.

B his taking steps for his name to be registered on the child’s birth certificate; [ 18 ] ORDERS that both parents receive the services from the same educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] ORDERS the father to submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP; [ 20 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father agrees to undergo random drug testing; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father engage in substance abuse and anger management programs; [ 22 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother receives services from the community; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of six months; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed September 9, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Myriam DeBlois (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Christian Benoit (Counsel for the child) Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight

(Counsel for the mother) Me Paul Grzela (Counsel for the biological father) Date of hearing: September 6, 2011