2016 QCCQ 17904, 2016 QCCQ 17904

Protection de la jeunesse — 168819 2016 QCCQ 17904 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-027609-130 DATE : May 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2011 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on May 27 th , 2016. [ 2 ] In July 2015, the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for extension of a decision rendered on January 15, 2015, by Judge Guy Lecompte.

The Director's final recommendation is for the child to continue to be entrusted to the care of her maternal grandmother for a maximum period of six months, that reintegration to the mother's care be allowed after three months and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] It is to be noted that since July 2015 (when the Court was seized of the motion for extension) many different conclusions were sought by the Director. The details of theses recommendations will be discussed later on. [ 4 ] On behalf of the mother, some facts alleged in the motion for extension are admitted.

Mother nonetheless denies the highly conflictual relationship opposing the parents and her lack of collaboration. The mother agrees with the continued entrustment of the child to her own mother but only for a short period of time. She wishes for the child to be reintegrated back in her care in one month and requests that the involvement of the Director of Youth Protection come to an end in six months. [ 5 ] The father admits most of the facts alleged in support of the motion.

He ignores the mother's level of collaboration with the Director and denies that the child presents as having a clear understanding of her parents' volatile relationship. He believes that the mother could

very well take care of the child in one month. He too would prefer that the involvement of the Director come to an end in six months rather than a year as recommended by the Director. [ 6 ] At the conclusion of the inquiry, counsel for the child agrees with the recommendations made by the Director. He believes the recommendations are in the best interest of the child as they ensure stability for the child while providing support services to the parents.

CONTEXT [ 7 ] While the father admits that following the decision rendered in January 2015, he continued to have a highly conflictual relationship with the mother, the mother denies such facts. [ 8 ] Both parents admitted that on April 16, 2015, a serious and violent incident occurred during which a volatile conflict escalated between the parents.

They also recognized that during a certain period of time, in the spring of 2015, they were "harassing" each other through text messages. [ 9 ] The report prepared by the Director, filed as evidence and dated July 2015, supported the continued entrustment of the child to her father "while increasing the overnight visits with the mother". The plan was for the Director to continue to provide services for a period of six months.

Before the case could be heard in Court on the merits, successive interim measures were rendered for various reasons. [ 10 ] On October 14 th , 2015, as the mother remained uncollaborative and the worker had been unable to meet the child for over a month, Judge Claude Lamoureux ordered the parents to collaborate with the Director and meet with the worker upon request and that the parents allow the youth protection worker access to the child upon request. [ 11 ] On October 27 th , 2015, due to a signalement received a few days before to the effect that the father had been involved in a fight and had arrived at the mother's home, with the child, intoxicated, Judge Jacques A.

Nadeau entrusted the child to the mother and ordered that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the father be determined by agreement between all parties. [ 12 ] A few days later, on November 6 th , Judge Louis Grégoire entrusted the child to her maternal grandmother, Mrs. C.

The mother had been hospitalized twice since the child had been entrusted to her care on October 27 th . [ 13 ] On December 9 th , 2015, the Director requested that the case be postponed as the mother was still hospitalized in psychiatry and under theses conditions it was impossible for the Director to make final recommendations to the Court. [ 14 ] On March 18 th , 2016, the Director was requesting that the child remain entrusted to the care of her maternal grandmother in order for the Director "to further evaluate the parents' ability to care for their daughter".

In the absence of the parents but with their consent (the parents were presents in the morning but did not stay for the Court hearing in the afternoon), the Court rendered an interim decision as per the recommendations. [ 15 ] As requested by the parents who could no longer collaborate with the previous worker, a new worker was appointed to work with the family. [ 16 ] On May 27 th , 2016, the new worker testified at length to the difficulties she has had to work collaboratively with the parents. [ 17 ] The worker was only able to meet briefly with the father on one occasion and had one phone conversation with him.

He has never called her nor requested from her any visits with the child. It is only the day of Court that the worker is informed, not by the parents but by the lawyers, that the father did have a contact with the child in the presence of the mother. [ 18 ] According to the worker, it is difficult for the mother to understand the process that has to take place before the child is entrusted back to her care. The mother is impatient and would like the child to be with her immediately. [ 19 ] The Director clearly lacks necessary information before any reintegration can take place.

The parents have to be "transparent" and share the information relative to their relationship and situation. The Director nor the Court can ignore the fact that the child has been exposed to their volatile and at times violent relationship. [ 20 ] The mother may very well continue to receive her prescribed medication following her last psychotic episodes (hospitalization for over one month in November-December 2015) but the worker is worried that the mother has missed her last two appointments with the social worker from the mental health clinic. [ 21 ] Very little is known of the father's condition.

While he had been the primary care taker for the child in 2015, incidents involving drinking alcohol occurred in the fall of 2015 which led to the child being removed from his care. Afterwards, it remains unclear as to what the father has done to address his personal issues. His trip to Guadeloupe does not establish that he has appropriately addressed his drinking problem. His lack of involvement with the child is concerning. His lack of collaboration with the Director is unacceptable. [ 22 ] The mother testified to the effect that she feels she has offered her best collaboration to the Director.

She wonders why her child cannot be reintegrated back in her care right now when the Director was alluding to that possibility in March 2016. [ 23 ] It is hoped that, after hearing the testimony of the new worker involved and the explanations given by the undersigned, the parents will, this time, fully collaborate with the Director. [ 24 ] The evidence provided establishes clearly that the security and development of the child are still compromised and that the recommendations made by the Director meet the needs of the child and are in her best interest. AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of her maternal grandmother, Mrs. C for a period of six (6) months; [ 27 ] TAKES ACT of the fact that Mrs.

C has been duly recognized as a foster home for the child; [ 28 ] AUTHORIZES integration in her mother's care after three (3) months, if the situation allows; [ 29 ] ORDERS that modalities and frequency of contacts between the child and her mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that modalities and duration of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS the minimum frequency at once (1) per week; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS both parents to continue to receive the services they need to address their own situation (medical situation for the mother, substance abuse situation for the father and issues related to violence for both of them); [ 32 ] ASKS the Director of Youth Protection to look into the child's registration in school; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the child Me Christophe Lafontant Attorney for the mother Me Martine Bourdeau Attorney for the father Date of hearing : May 27 th , 2016