2019 QCCQ 16086, 2019 QCCQ 16086

Protection de la jeunesse — 196399 2019 QCCQ 16086 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-005536-175 DATE: June 18, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 2006 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant 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 ] By a judgment of May 1, 2018, the Court applies various measures of aid and protection for one year in regards to the child X, the whole stemming from a situation of educational neglect.

Following an agreement between the parties, amid these measures, X resides with her mother while seeing her father on a regular basis. [ 2 ] Alleging that services are still required to support the parents in their respective roles, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the extension of the measures for another six months. The parents sign an agreement of non-attendance to an uncontested court hearing, subscribing to the Director’s evaluation and orientation.

The child’s attorney, acting under a legal mandate, consigns her agreement at the hearing. [ 3 ] Analysis and decision [ 4 ] Since the last order, X resides with her mother and visits her father on an irregular basis. [ 5 ] Although the mother is well attuned to her daughter’s various needs in relation to her diagnoses (ADD, language delay and learning disabilities), she still struggles with maintaining a constancy as to routine, supervision and hygiene. She involves herself in her child’s schooling and the services in place. [ 6 ] The prohibition of contacts between Mr.

C and the child is respected by the mother. Recently, she states that they no longer are a couple. [ 7 ] X’s behaviours remain a challenge. Stubborn and sometimes oppositional, she resists her mother’s efforts for structure. As an example, she can stay on her cellphone and go to bed late at night. This lack of routine leaves her tired for school and less available for learning.

Her mother is aware that such is not ideal, but is reluctant to push her authority further, stating having to choose her battles. [ 8 ] A homebound educator intervenes to support the mother in her role. [ 9 ] The father has made himself a little available for the follow-up. [ 10 ] The parents are able to communicate together in regards to their daughter, although they have divergent perceptions as to her need for medication. [ 11 ] There is a lack of constancy as to routine and supervision in both households.

At her father’s home, X basically does as she pleases whereby at her mother’s, there are rules and a structure in place, even though these are not rigorously imposed. [ 12 ] Since X moved in with her mother her situation has improved positively, although the parties recognize that there remains a risk

of instability in relation to her specific needs and the foreseeable challenges.

Namely, she will shortly transition towards high school, which may require a more intense accompaniment to help her and her family adjust to this new reality. [ 13 ] Therefore, after considering the evidence, the Court endorses the application and its conclusions which reflect the child’s best interests and the objectives of the law while receiving the approval of the parties. [ 14 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application for extension of a Court decision; [ 16 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the child still in danger; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS the child in her maternal environment; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the mother not put the child in contact directly or indirectly with Mr.

C; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 23 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 6 months; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 18, 2019