r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 9968

Protection de la jeunesse — 151332 2015 QCCQ 9968 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004759-141 DATE: January 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...] , 2003 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A 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 presents a motion for protection concerning the child X , alleging that her security and development are in danger in regard to a serious risk of neglect, while further recommending the application of various protective measures for one year, notably that the Court entrust her to her maternal grandmother, Ms C . [ 2 ] The Court dispenses service to the child’s father, considering he is of unknown address, despite the numerous efforts of the Director to retrace his specific coordinates. [ 3 ] The mother and child consign their admissions to the court record.

The mother agrees to the proposed orientation, to the exception of a recommendation that she receive services concerning her mental health issues. [ 4 ] The child also agrees to the general orientation.

Her attorney contests the following conclusions, citing them as premature: ORDER , if Ms C' s environment will be evaluated as a foster family for the children (…) and X ; ORDER , if Ms C is recognised (sic) as a foster family, that the children (…) and X be entrusted to a foster family after her date of certification; [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] In May 2014, the Director of Youth Protection retains a situation of serious risk of neglect in regards to the child. [ 7 ] The mother assumes the custody of X , as well as that of her brother, Y .

The father has little involvement and contacts are irregular. [ 8 ] The mother composes with cyclical personal difficulties which affect her parental capabilities to respond to the children’s needs. The evidence also demonstrates that the mother struggles with emotional issues which concurrently affect her functioning and stability. [ 9 ] In the past, the family is the subject of previous protective measures, with a recurring theme of neglect, instability and lack of organization. [ 10 ] The maternal grandmother, Ms C , plays a significant role in the siblings’ lives, receiving them almost every weekend.

As well, the family resides with her on numerous occasions. Since their respective births, the mother entrusts her children to their grandmother

for short and long term periods and this, on a regular basis. [ 11 ] The mother’s relationship with the maternal grandmother can be sometimes conflictual, although relating to personal issues not pertaining to the children. In April 2014, while the mother and the children reside with the maternal grandmother, an altercation results in a police intervention and a restraining order with the grandmother, spurring another residential change. [ 12 ] The mother resists protective services and does not contact the caseworker until September 2014.

At this juncture, she seeks emergency measures, indicating being overwhelmed by her personal situation and facing an eviction from her apartment as of October 1 st . [ 13 ] Consequently, as of September 26, 2014, the mother agrees to entrust both siblings to their maternal grand-mother on a provisional basis. [ 14 ] In this environment, the children evolve positively. X functions well and demonstrates resilience to the problematic elements of her maternal environment.

She states appreciating the stability her grandmother offers. [ 15 ] Since that time, the mother resides with the maternal great-grandmother, remaining within proximity of the children. Although she is more available for the caseworkers, she still resists services and minimizes her difficulties. [ 16 ] Visitation between the children and their mother occurs on an almost daily basis.

Although the relationship between the mother and the grandmother remains tense and they have no contacts, the situation is more positive and there is no impact on the visitation schedule. [ 17 ] The mother demonstrates many positive parental qualities and is affectionate and attentive to her children. Yet, her propensity towards disorganization leads to her inability to offer a consistent and stable physical environment to her children.

She needs to attend to her personal issues in order to be fully available to understand and fulfill her children’s needs. [ 18 ] Thus, after evaluating the evidence and taking in consideration the parties’ respective positions, the Court determines that the child is at serious risk of neglect in her family environment, justifying the application of protective measures.

The general orientation sought by the Director of Youth Protection corresponds to the child’s best interests to evolve in a stable environment able to prioritize her needs. [ 19 ] The Court evaluates the evidence as it pertains to the contentious issues. [ 20 ] The mother advises the Court that she has no specific mental health diagnosis and that she is presently awaiting a psychiatric evaluation. She states being willing to respect any recommendations of a mental health professional, but doesn’t want to be bound by services which she considers might not be pertinent.

She asks that the recommendation reflect this reality. This argument being sound, the Court modulates its recommendation in this sense. [ 21 ] As to the issue of the grandmother’s accreditation as a foster family, the evidence demonstrates that she is still evaluating her position as to this process, which will not proceed unless she shows her willingness in this regard. [ 22 ] The Court appreciates the Director’s view towards obtaining a comprehensive order and therefore avoiding a return before the Court for what amounts to an administrative request.

But such is not the case here, as it is still unsure if the process towards accreditation will be undertaken and if so, what result will ensue. [ 23 ] Protective measures must correspond to the child’s best interests following facts in evidence. This necessarily excludes orders based on hypotheses.

In view of these facts, the Court dismisses the Director’s request as premature. [ 24 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger in regard to a situation of serious risk of neglect; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her maternal grand-mother, Ms. C ; [ 28 ] TAKES ACT that Ms.

C ’s environment will be evaluated as a foster family for the child, should she make a request to this affect; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be determined following agreement between the parties; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive services in regard to her mental health, if such is suggested by a psychiatrist or other medical professional; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and her family; [ 34 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for one year; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the

measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Mrs. Catherine St-Yves Articling student for the Petitioner Me Annie Girard Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: January 9, 2015