2018 QCCQ 16674, 2018 QCCQ 16674

Protection de la jeunesse — 187883 2018 QCCQ 16674 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-033208-174 DATE : September 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2013 child 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 September 17, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the parents do not meet the child’s basic daily needs. [ 3 ] On October 27, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the maternal grandmother, Mrs. C and ordered support measures on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] On January 23, 2018, the hearing was postponed in order for the father to be served with the application through Facebook.

In the meantime, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the maternal grandmother’s care, authorizing a progressive reintegration of the child to the mother’s care. The hearing was postponed to May 11, 2018. [ 5 ] On May 11, 2018, Me Morin asked for a postponement as the mother’s admissibility to legal aid was not yet confirmed. The case was postponed to September 17, 2018. [ 6 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the maternal grandmother for a period of four months.

The Director also recommends that support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 7 ] The mother and the child’s lawyer are in agreement with the Director’s plan. Question in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] In the past, the child’s situation has been followed by the Director of Youth Protection and by the Court of Quebec. [ 10 ] On June 11, 2013, the Honourable Élaine Demers declared that the security or development of the child was compromised due

to a situation of neglect for Y and for a situation of serious risk of neglect for the child and his brother.

The Tribunal entrusted the child to the mother’s care at the condition that they reside at [Center A]. [ 11 ] On July 8, 2014, the Honourable Ruth Veillet revised and extended the judgement and ordered that the child be entrusted to a confidential foster family for a period of one year. [ 12 ] On January 15, 2015, the Honourable Ruth Veillet revised the judgement and lifted the confidentiality of the foster family with regards to the mother. [ 13 ] On April 20, 2016, the Honourable Ruth Veillet revised and extended the judgement and ordered that the child be reintegrated to the mother’s care by May 20, 2016 with support measures for a period of six months. [ 14 ] On December 19, 2016, the undersigned extended the decision rendered by the Honourable Judge Veillet.

The Tribunal maintained the child in the mother’s care and ordered support measures for a period of six months. [ 15 ] On June 19, 2017, the Director closed the child’s youth protection file. [ 16 ] In July 2017, the family struggled with an outbreak of fleas and bed bugs. The mother was unable to mobilize and address this situation. She was not forthcoming with this information with the school officials. The family had to get rid of all their belongings.

Given the severity of the bug’s bite, the child required medical treatment. [ 17 ] The child and his brother report that their father is residing in the family home. The mother and the father are denying this information. The father reports living in [province A] since October 2015. He has refused to provide the youth protection worker with his address and phone number.

The mother reports that child has sporadic contacts with the father through social media. [ 18 ] On September 28, 2017, the parties signed a provisional agreement for the child to be entrusted to the maternal grandmother. [ 19 ] On October 27, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the maternal grandmother, Mrs. C. [ 20 ] Since then, the mother had her apartment fumigated and inspected. There have been no more issues with bed bugs.

She needs to buy new beds for the child and his brother. [ 21 ] On two occasions (February 7 th and May 3 rd , 2018), during unannounced visits to the mother’s place, the youth protection worker met the father. Confronted with this information, on both occasions, the mother specified that the father was only there during that specific day and that he was leaving the province. [ 22 ] On May 3 rd , 2018, the father was verbally abusive to the youth protection worker and confirmed his refusal to collaborate with the Director.

He reportedly went back to [province A]. [ 23 ] The mother has not been forthcoming with the information concerning the father’s involvement in her life. Furthermore, she needs to settle in her living situation prior to any reintegration. She moved to a new apartment on July 1 st , 2018 and signed a one year lease. She is still in the process of furnishing her apartment. [ 24 ] The maternal grandmother remains available to care for the child. She’s being assessed as a potential proximity foster family for the child.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 b) 1 o i of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandmother for a period of four months; [ 28 ] ORDERS , as of January 17, 2019, that the child be entrusted to his mother’s care; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the father be prohibited until he meet the Director of Youth Protection and it is deemed in the child’s best interest to have contact; [ 30 ] WITHDRAWS from the father the exercise of parental authority with regards to medical, school and travel issues; [ 31 ] ORDERS that all of the child’s health, school and therapeutic needs be met in a timely manner and that the mother follow through with the recommendations of the professionals involved; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 33 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 34 ] 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. Written and signed on September 18, 2018 /cd Mtre Isabelle Loranger Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Sylvie Piriou Counsel for the child Mtre Marc Morin Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 17, 2018