2018 QCCQ 20703, 2018 QCCQ 20703

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811497 2018 QCCQ 20703 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-031513-161 DATE : February 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2016 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] In the context of a hearing conducted jointly with the consent of the parties, the Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on October 31, 2016, entrusting the children to the care of the mother to the exclusion of the father with a social follow up and other corrective measures. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that the children are doing well in their current environment while benefitting from regular visits with the father.

Both parents cooperate with the social worker and adhere to the intervention plan. Custody proceedings in Superior Court have been initiated although they remain pending. [ 3 ] Consequently, the Director is asking that the children be entrusted exclusively to the mother with a social follow-up until May 2, 2018. The delay requested is essentially for the purpose of ensuring that all services required for the children, particularly for Y, are in place and that a final custody order is rendered.

It is expected that, considering the evolution of the file, the Director will be able to withdraw services at the end of the order. [ 4 ] The parents admit the allegations and consent to the measures proposed. [ 5 ] The lawyer representing the children supports the Director’s position. The Situation [ 6 ] Since the prior order, the father has attended treatment sessions dealing with conjugal violence although he continues to deny any abuse and downplays his past aggressive behaviour. [ 7 ] Currently, he has supervised visits with the children on a weekly basis.

It has been observed that he tends to concentrate his focus on Y thus neglecting X. Although he requires prompting to provide her with attention and stimulation, the father is open to feedback in relation to his parenting skills. [ 8 ] The mother has completed therapeutic sessions regarding the conjugal violence that she has endured in the past. She no longer deems it necessary to pursue services of this nature and feels prepared to focus on her family’s future.

[ 9 ] Both children are doing well in their current environment. The maternal grandmother resides in the maternal home and offers the mother a great deal of support. [ 10 ] Concerns still exist however regarding Y’s development. His speech remains problematic; his vocabulary is extremely limited and he is unable to construct a two-word sentence. Furthermore, indicators of Autism spectrum disorder have been observed both at the daycare and at home. He is currently waiting for a complete assessment. [ 11 ] Y is progressing as expected, reaching all developmental milestones.

She receives a regular paediatric follow-up and her vaccinations are up to date. Conclusion [ 12 ] The evidence demonstrates that the overall situation has progressed well despite the father’s continued negation of his past aggressive behaviour.

Nevertheless, the Director’s intervention continues to be required in order to ensure that Y receives the assessment and services that he requires, that the custody issues are finalized and that the father continues to benefit from feedback regarding his parental skills. [ 13 ] Considering these objectives, the Court concludes that the measures proposed are in the children’s best interest. [ 14 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 15 ] THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children continue to be endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the children remain in the care of their mother to the exclusion of the father; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the children and their father be determined by the DYP in accordance with any Superior Court proposed plan of access regarding the children and their father; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from all forms of verbal and physical violence in the children’s presence including the use of threats or derogatory comments; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents engage in their respective treatments to address issues of conjugal violence and to follow the recommendations; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the Director ensure that Y undergo a developmental autism spectrum disorder assessment; [ 23 ] GIVEN the consent of the parties, AUTHORIZES the Director to exchange information with treating professionals; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE until May 2, 2018.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On February 27, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the children Me Marc Castonguay Attorney for the mother

Me Josselin Breton Attorney for the father Date of hearing: February 2, 2018 KO/lf