2017 QCCQ 981, 2017 QCCQ 981

Protection de la jeunesse — 17220 2017 QCCQ 981 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000519-162 DATE: January 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2006 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 July 19, 2016 in respect of the child. Her twin sister is aimed by the same application. The parties agree to present a common proof. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are not present, even if they were duly served. [ 3 ] The child is also absent but duly represented. Her counsel also agrees to the filing of the report to value the testimony of its author.

Considering the evidence, counsel for the child expresses his consent to the measures proposed by the DYP. [ 4 ] Since the last measures ordered entrusting the child to a foster family, the situation of the parents has not improved. [ 5 ] Neither of the parents have contacts with the DYP. They tried several times to reach them but unsuccessfully. [ 6 ] The mother has a good bond with the foster family. She takes the arrangements with them to have contact with her child, but she is inconsistent. She had a few visits during the summer.

In September 2016, she made herself available almost every day to bring her child to school, but it only lasted until the end of October, and she stopped. However, she continues to have sporadic visits with her child. [ 7 ] The father also had limited contact with his daughter. He uses inappropriate language while speaking with the youth delegate. More than once, he has been verbally aggressive and sometimes physically threatening towards her. [ 8 ] Between July 19, 2016 and December 21, 2016, the DYP did not have any contacts with him. On December 22, 2016, the youth delegate talked with the father.

Once again, he was very aggressive and violent in his language toward the youth delegate. [ 9 ] A few days later, they talked and he apologized for his previous behaviour and indicated his wish to have his daughter back and was willing to work on that. He is well aware that it is not an easy task. He recognizes that a lot of work has to be done in order to be reunited with his child. [ 10 ] Since the last court order, the parents did not take serious steps or the actions to change their way of life in order to put an end to

the situation of endangerment. They are unstable, and they both have addictions. [ 11 ] Both parents required professional services in order to change successfully their way of life and in order to provide a secure and safe environment for their daughter. For the time being, it is not the case. Nothing demonstrates that real changes or improvement have been made yet. [ 12 ] The child is ten years old. She is doing well in school, and she enjoys living with the paternal aunt. She is very close with her sister, and they support each other. She needs a secure and in a stable environment.

For the moment, the parents cannot provide such surroundings and care for the child’s needs. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger. Under the circumstances, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in her best interest. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until June 30, 2017; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the visits with the child and her parents be determined by an agreement between the parties; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child and her parents benefit from external educator services; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in psychological services to help deal with personal issues and counseling if deemed necessary; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in an addiction assessment and counselling if deemed necessary; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participates in anger-management; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents meet monthly with the youth protection delegate; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child and her family actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2017; [ 25 ] 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 present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Cédric Leblanc Falardeau for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: January 6, 2017 Written judgment filed on January 16, 2017