2017 QCCQ 14444, 2017 QCCQ 14444

Protection de la jeunesse — 176222 2017 QCCQ 14444 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000529-161 DATE: June 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2004 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 January 6, 2017 in respect of the child. Her brother is aimed by the same application. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are present but not represented by lawyers. They both agree with the facts of the application and also with the measures proposed by the DYP. [ 3 ] The child is not present but duly represented by a lawyer.

Counsel expresses her admission with the facts and her consent to the recommendations suggested by the DYP. [ 4 ] All the parties are in agreement with the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. Even if the father considers the psychosocial report to be biased towards him. He feels that he is portrayed negatively. He believes his actions or words exchanged were taking wrongfully. He is not happy with the perception that the DYP has of him. [ 5 ] He admits that his collaboration was not as good as expected. He did the things he thought was good for his daughter without involving the DYP.

He kind of put them aside. However, he is pleased with the mother’s achievements and improvements. [ 6 ] Since the last court order rendered on January 6, 2017, the situation evolved in the mother’s situation. [ 7 ] Concerning the mother, it was noticed great progress all through her follow-up. She became more involved with DYP and collaborates well with them. It was observed that she is very forthcoming with honesty and she is able to express her feelings.

She is stable emotionally and she is doing well for the past months. [ 8 ] On February 22, 2017, she successfully graduated from a residential addiction treatment program of Mawiomi that she attended for a six-week period. Currently, she goes to AA meetings and pursues her follow-up with her psychiatrist. However, she admits having a relapse by consuming marihuana on May 2017. She is more than willing to take random drug tests. It shows her transparency and honesty with the DYP. [ 9 ] She has regular contacts with her children through visitation and phone calls. She is concerned with their emotional well-being.

She wants professional services in order to help them. [ 10 ] On the child’s side, she adjusted very well in the father’s environment. She enjoys living with him and her siblings and she does want to stay there on a permanent basis. [ 11 ] The Youth Protection delegates this Court mentions the following in the psychosocial report [1] dated May 17, 2017, for which this Court could not agree more: “Mental health issues can create challenges and it is known there will be tribulations, however; with professional support services and external education along with Ms.

A’s willingness to want a healthy lifestyle, together with her family they can achieve success.” [ 12 ] Seeing all the progress made by both the child and the mother, it is now favourable for the child to reintegrate her maternal home but with the support required. [ 13 ] It is clear in the Court’s mind that the mother did prioritize the needs of her family and committed to it. However, the family still requires help, support and guidance.

Everyone wants to be involved in the process and have services in order to put an end to the situation of compromission. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Under the circumstances and considering the admission and consent of the parties, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 17 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on January 6, 2017, in the present file; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child and her mother benefit from the services of an external educator; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in an addiction assessment, treatment, counseling and follow-up; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother actively participate in a personal and parental psychological assessment; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents respectfully continue to collaborate in scheduled visits with the paternal family; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2018; [ 24 ] 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 applicant Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Mrs. A the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: June 7, 2017 Written judgment filed on June 22, 2017