2020 QCCQ 10446, 2020 QCCQ 10446

Protection de la jeunesse — 207755 2020 QCCQ 10446 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000488-180 DATE: October 22, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2015 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 ] Initially, the director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the judgment rendered on September 4, 2019, in order to entrust the child to a foster family. His brother is aimed by the same proceedings, and a joint hearing is held. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the DYP modifies their conclusions in order to entrust the children to the maternal grandmother and that an external educator provides services for the family.

The conclusion regarding the supervision of contact for Mme C is striking. Following those changes, the parents are in agreement with the recommendations of the DYP, even if they deny certain facts alleged in the application. [ 3 ] Since the last order, the parents show more stability. Their environment is secure and clean. They are not always collaborative nor transparent with the DYP. Since January 2020, some improvements are noticeable. Although the parents still show quick reactions sometimes or are disrespectful to the DYP when they disagree with their decision.

Afterwards, the mother apologizes for her conduct. On this aspect, the Court had a demonstration of it, during the hearing, for a few moments, we can observe the way the mother reacts when dissatisfied with the course of the hearing or to the comments made. Even in a court room, there is no restraint and a lack of respect. [ 4 ] The supervised visits with the children are positive and go well. Everyone is pleased with these moments. Sadly, due to the pandemic Covid-19, these contacts were suspended. The mother had a hard a time coping with the absence of her children, which is completely comprehensible.

We can understand her dismay at the situation over which; we have little control. However, she did not hesitate to ask for help to accompany her in this ordeal. She is presently on a waiting list to obtain a follow-up. [ 5 ] The parents deny using drugs other than marijuana as well as conjugal violence between them or any physical abuse on the children. On that subject, the father’s daughter born from a previous union, alleges to have been the victim of physical abuse as well as certain members of her siblings, in the paternal environment.

In a judgment rendered by our colleague Justice Poirier, filed as evidence, the latter concludes that there was an indeed physical abuse on the part of her father but also of her stepmother [1] . [ 6 ] Still the parents have to mobilize themselves concerning their personal issues such as managing their emotions, anger and impulsivity. Some steps were made by them to that matter. The father begins a follow-up with [Center A], which he pursues to this day. He is motivated to continue and admits during meetings that he has difficulty managing his emotions, but he is open to solving his problems.

For the mother, she is waiting for services, but met with her doctor to obtain medication for her anxiety. Certainly, they seem to take the necessary measures to resolve their problems, but on the other hand, they do not seem to recognize these difficulties. Besides, we must ensure that these services will be maintained through time. [ 7 ] Indeed, the process and the follow-ups initiated by the parents are still recent. Currently, the situation remains too fragile to

consider returning the children to the parents. [ 8 ] Y lives with a different foster family from his brothers. He behaves aggressively, and he has tantrums that are difficult to manage. The reasons underlying the adoption of such behaviour are unexplained. Despite services put in place, there is not much change. We learn at the hearing that he is due to be relocated shortly to another foster family, for reasons not disclosed . [ 9 ] X is doing well in his current foster family. Obviously, changing family is not a decision taken lightly.

We understand that the requested placement is in an environment well known by the child. He will also be reunited with his brother. [ 10 ] The maternal grandmother and her spouse want to take care of the children. Their physical environment is adequate, and they love them very much. They can provide a secure environment, and they already know each other. Of course, the grandmother has difficulty to identify or answer questions pertaining to the children’s needs as well as of their own ability to do so.

We could also notice that aspect, when asked about daycare for one of the children, it was laborious for her to give a clear answer. That is the reason why the presence of an external educator will be beneficial to help her deal with these issues and to learn some tools. [ 11 ] The youth delegate involved with the family has no concerns about entrusting the children to the maternal grandmother. She believes that with the help of an external educator, the latter will be able to assume her role adequately and provide the children a proper environment.

In the past, the children were already entrusted to the maternal grandmother, but were taken away from her, after a misunderstanding, regarding contact with the parents. She learned the hard way the consequences of not respecting the rules put in place. She also testifies that she will not make the same mistake again and will follow the court order. Parents are as well advised not to visit the children at her home except when permitted, if they do not wish the children to be entrusted to third parties, this is besides their responsibility. [ 12 ] We still have to keep an eye on the situation of this family.

Surprise visits must be set up to ensure that the maternal grandmother commitments are respected and for the parents not to have unauthorized contacts with the children, otherwise they will have to be removed once again, which would be traumatic for them. [ 13 ] The evidence adduces demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the admissions, the consent of the parents with the amended measures suggested by the DYP, the application is well founded. Furthermore, it appears to be in the child’s best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on September 4, 2019; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandmother, C, until April 30, 2021; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child maintain his interpersonal relationship with his siblings; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined following an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child and the family benefit from external education services, as long as deem necessary; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents avoid exposing the child to any kind of violence; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents participate actively to the application of the measures ordered; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until April 30,2021; [ 24 ] 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 judgment; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parties to conform themselves to the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the parents

Date of hearing: October 7, 2020