2016 QCCQ 5471, 2016 QCCQ 5471

Protection de la jeunesse — 161034 2016 QCCQ 5471 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000483-153 DATE: January 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2002 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 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on July 28, 2015, in respect of the child. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the child are present and represented. The father is present but unrepresented.

All the parties agree with the facts and moreover; they consent to the filing of the reports to value the testimony of their respective author. [ 3 ] Concerning the conclusions proposed, at the hearing the DYP proceeded to an amendment of the conclusion of the petition instead of entrusting the child to the mother as initially planned they proposed that both parents be entrusted with the child equally. [ 4 ] The family had been receiving services for the past five years because the parents have a dysfunctional relationship. [ 5 ] The social worker testifies about the reasons of her change of orientation in the file.

In fact, the child told her at first that he would like to live exclusively with the father because he is afraid that his mother will not allow him to see his father and grand-parents anymore when returning to her care. Furthermore, the father collaborates well with the services in comparison to the past. He participates at every meeting plan, and he respects the boundaries established. He gives the medication to the child. The father even seeks help, and he receives services on a weekly basis from an external educator. He is involved with his child and cares for him.

The father made a lot of progress in the past months. [ 6 ] The mother had a follow-up with a social worker for the past two years. She is involved in her son’s life and takes care of his appointments with the professionals. She is very structured and imposes that on her child. If the rules are not respected there are consequences. Recently, she has worked on giving more permissions to her son. She states that her child will have consistency by living at her place exclusively, and she agrees that her son see his father. [ 7 ] The father has a good bond and relationship with his son.

Nothing in the evidence reveals that the father is inappropriate nor that he does not have parental capacities, on the contrary. The evidence shows that the father’s situation is very positive in regards of his implication with the services. Moreover, he has a follow-up, and he intends to pursue it. [ 8 ] The child is 13 years old. He has been diagnosed with an a ttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) for which he receives medication. Since his integration at the rehabilitation center, the child made some progress.

He functions well in school, and he has a good behaviour at the center but also with his parents. The child benefits from regular visits

with both of his parents. Even if, the situation is developing, the child still needs a high level of structure and support to help him regulate notably his behaviour and social interaction. So there is still a lot of work to be done, but it is a good start. The evidence is completed by his testimony, where he expresses clearly that he wishes to live with both parents. He does not want to choose between them because he loves them both. [ 9 ] Basically, the situation evolved since the last court order. The child requires structure and consistency, and both parents can provide that.

They will have to continue their involvement and follow-ups. Also, they have to improve and work on their communication problems, so they become more appropriate for the child’s well-being. [ 10 ] The evidence shows that both parents are appropriate to care for the child, for these reasons the child should benefit from both of them. Furthermore, since a follow-up will be in place with the DYP, the Court believes that the situation will be managed to ensure that the sharing of the child will go smoothly. [ 11 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the youth are still in danger.

Under the circumstances, the petition is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child. THEREFORE, THE COURT [ 12 ] GRANTS the petition for revision and extension order; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 14 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on July 28, 2015; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his parents, one week with his mother and one week with his father; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues and develop better parenting skills; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in meeting with DYP on a regular basis; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in external education services; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures intended to put an end to the situation of an endangerment; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until January 30, 2017; [ 21 ] 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 judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the petitioner Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Kimon Kling for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: January 7, 2016 Written judgment filed on January 21, 2016