2019 QCCQ 14225, 2019 QCCQ 14225

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910448 2019 QCCQ 14225 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000683-158 DATE: August 8, 2019 (written judgment rendered on December 5, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 extend a decision rendered on July 26, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2012. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and remained the child with his father with aid, counselling and assistance until December 14, 2018. [ 2 ] The DYP recommends that the child remain with his father, with aid, counselling and assistance, until September 30, 2019.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. She admits all the allegations except 5.5, and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Boudreau. He admits most of the allegations, and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] X, who is 7 years old, is present and represented Me Mocanu Culuri. There are no admissions on the child’s part, but he agrees with the measures. History of the situation [ 6 ] On January 6, 2016 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court. He was 3 and a half years old.

The DYP was involved in the family since September 2014, on voluntary measures because of parents’ alcohol consumption and conjugal violence. On April 15, 2015, X was entrusted to a foster home. The father was detained for a while, but released for five months. The mother still had alcohol consumption issues. She found a job. The father was present at the Court house. It was disappointed that the mother did not come. He planned to go to school to be able to offer a better life to his son.

The Court declared that the security and development of X were endangered [1] and entrusted him to a foster family with a reintegration with the parents as soon as the situation allowed for it. [ 7 ] On August 22, 2016 , the Court noted that the child was fostered by his great-grandmother. Since February 2015, the mother lived there. She was taking very good care of the child. She still displayed alcohol consumption issues, but never consumed in his presence. She would like to attend Therapy Center A.

The father took very good care of the child, but he lived in a house where there is a lot of consumption and recognized that his house was not appropriate. The Court maintained the child to a foster family for a period of six months with a reintegration as soon as possible and ordered the mother to complete a therapy. [ 8 ] On January 25, 2017 , a provisional order was rendered and the child was entrusted to his father. [ 9 ] On March 2, 2017 , the Court revised the situation and noted that the mother was very unstable. She travels from one village to another one.

Police interventions were required many times as she was intoxicated and suicidal. She was pregnant. The father stopped

drinking. He was going to school, and he completed a program to address his anger management issues. He was ready to have his son under his care. The Court entrusted the child to his father and order that the services of an external educator be provided. [ 10 ] On December 19, 2017 , the mother was absent for the revision. The evidence revealed that she reduced her consumption. She gave birth, but lost her baby following health complications. X was doing well at his father in Town A.

The Court maintained him under his father’s care until July 27, 2018. [ 11 ] On July 26, 2018 , the parties reached an agreement which was ratified by the Court. The Child was still doing very well under his father’s care. The father finished his chilling in Town A and moved to Town B with his son. They lived at the grandfather’s place as the father was on a waiting list for his own apartment. The mother stopped drink since she found out she was pregnant, but she did not seek help.

The Court maintained the child with his father until December 14, 2018. [ 12 ] On December 6, 2018 , a provisional order was rendered and the Court maintained the status quo until March 2019. As the father was at school in Town C, the hearing was postponed again and status quo is maintained until August 2019. Facts [ 13 ] In January 2019, the father moved to Town C for schooling purposes with X who was registered at school. A request of collaboration was made with the DYP in Town C. [ 14 ] X quickly adapted himself to his new environment. He made new friends and said loving his school and teacher.

A difficulty occurred because the father did not file properly the medical information to the school to let them know about X’s allergy. He had to be brought to the hospital by ambulance with the school principal. Since that time, the father did not take steps regarding the follow-up for this allergy. The DYP worker in Town C gave him some information regarding that, and will continue to follow him on this aspect. [ 15 ] At the end of May 2019, the father came back in [the region A] for vacation, and X did not go to school during that time. The schooling of his son does not seem to be important for the father.

He will be followed on this aspect also. [ 16 ] It is also reported that X seems to have a speech delay. The DYP recommend that he be seen by a speech therapist and an audiologist. [ 17 ] Now the father has a stable life. He plans to be in Town C for two years. He spoke about requesting the full custody of X as he was told about that. The Court sees at the hearing that he does not understand exactly the objective and the difference between having or not a judgment of custody. [ 18 ] The mother is living in Town D with her boyfriend. She was pregnant, but lost the baby on August 11, 2018.

In October, she started working as a teacher at school. Her way of life remains unstable as she still struggles with alcohol consumption issues and conjugal violence. The loss of her baby also had an impact on her mental health issues. [ 19 ] She stopped working at school, and she is now manager of the Elder’s home. She recently struggled with suicidal ideation, and two social interventions were required. She was also arrested in May while being intoxicated. [ 20 ] The parents are able to communicate to organize the access between the child and his mother.

Both extended families are very supportive. [ 21 ] The DYP considers that the father is presently able to raise his child, but would like to stay involve until the father obtain the sole custody of his son. Analysis [ 22 ] At the hearing, the undersigned explained to the father the importance of the schooling and the health follow-up of the child. The father moved to Town C for his schooling purposes. He now has to put the same importance on his son’s schooling. [ 23 ] The father is also invited to request more information about the sole custody of his son, but the Court won’t make it mandatory.

The objective of the YPA is to put an end to the situation in which the development of a child is endangered and the Court does not consider that the absence of judgment of custody will create a situation of endangerment.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2012, are still endangered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child remain with the father; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child attend a school on a regular basis; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the child and the parents receive the services of an external educator for the period deemed necessary by the professionals;

[ 31 ] ORDERS that the child receive health cares and services required by his situation, including speech therapist and audiologist; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the father take the legal steps to obtain full custody of the child; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services concerning her alcohol and personal issues; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contact between the child and the mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] TAKES ACKNOWLEDGE that the Director of Youth Protection agree to pay plane tickets for three visits in the present measures; [ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 38 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the information regarding the parents' presence at appointments with professionals, and the level of involvement in the services provided; [ 39 ] ORDERS the father to inform the Director of Youth Protection each time he travels to the region A; [ 40 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 41 ] THE WHOLE until the end of May 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Ana-Maria Mocanu Culuri, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me David Boudreau, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 8, 2019