2011 QCCQ 17634, 2011 QCCQ 17634

Protection de la jeunesse — 116886 2011 QCCQ 17634 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-022987-101 N°: 525-41-022988-109 N°: 525-41-022986-103 DATE: December 7, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on [...], 2001 - and - Y Born on […], 2003 - and - Z Born on […], 2007 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

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 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of December 7, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with three motions for extension. In the cases of X and Z the Court ordered on October 1 st , 2010, that the children be maintained in foster care for a period of six months with reintegration to their mother’s care during this period and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for one year.

In the case of Y, the Court ordered on January 21, 2011, that the child be entrusted to her mother’s care with a social follow-up until October 1 st , 2011. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • Since December 2, 2010, the mother has been living on her own, with the children being gradually reintegrated to her care; • Through the help of an educator, the mother has been focusing on improving her parental skills and addressing the children’s needs;

• The mother demonstrates difficulty in managing the children’s needs as well as the rivalry between the children; • X was suspended from school on three occasions due to defiant and aggressive behaviour with school staff as well as for the theft of an I-Phone; • Given X’s behaviour and that she would benefit from a more structured school setting, the mother agreed for the child to attend A School for which she has yet to complete the application forms; • The mother has yet to seek custody of the children before a court of law; • The father has regular contacts with the children; • The father’s home is dirty, cluttered and under construction; • The father does not have the parental capacity to care for the children on a full-time basis; • Since the month of July 2011, the father is involved in an outpatient drug treatment program. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection filed a second addendum dated November 30, 2011, which concludes that the children are no longer deemed that risk in the full-time care of their mother and therefore recommended that the cases be closed. [ 5 ] The mother, through her attorney, admitted the facts alleged in the motions and agreed with the position of the Director of Youth Protection that the security and development of the children are no longer compromised and therefore asked for the files to be closed.

She is on a waiting list at the CLSC to receive services of a social worker for on-going parenting support. [ 6 ] The father admitted the facts alleged in the motions and asked for the continued involvement of DYP with his children. The father testified that he has not seen the children in the last month, as the mother refuses for him to have access to them except in her presence. The father is asking to see his children at his home on Sundays, as before, with his partner being present for one hour at super time.

Furthermore, the father states that he agrees to continue receiving the services of an educator to help in disciplining the children. The father filed two letters, one from A Center confirming his attendance at a parenting skills group and the other from Pavillon A confirming that he has completed the level 3 treatment program and recommending that he participate in the recovery management program. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. [social worker 1], human relations’ agent, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation.

The evidence reveals that the parents have a conflictual relationship and that the mother has unilaterally decided that the father could no longer have access to the children except in her presence. The mother has concerns with the children having access to the father’s partner and to certain of the father’s friends, due to their drug use. The father states having concerns about the mother’s parenting and two of the mother’s friends. [ 8 ] There are ongoing concerns regarding the father’s lifestyle, drug use and parental abilities.

The father still needs support concerning his drug use and has accepted to participate in the Recovery Management Program at Pavillon A. He also needs continuing support around his parenting skills as noted by the A Center educator, Ms. [social worker 2], who had started working with the father and the children. The father did not present himself at Superior court for the custody hearing in order to request visitation rights to his children.

That again shows his lack of responsibility and organizational skills. [ 9 ] It is in the children’s interest to have a relationship with their father and it is noted that they miss their him when visits are cancelled. Furthermore, as written in the second addendum, Y and X find difficult to deal with their parents’ disagreements: The undersigned spoke with Y and X separately at their school in November 2011. During the visit it became apparent that they struggle with feeling caught in the middle of both of their parents.

They both mentioned feeling unsure what to think or feel when the parents disagree on various matters and mention having to listen to each of their parents respectively when they are in their care. Y and X have a difficult time answering questions about their feelings regarding the individuals that their mother does not want in their company. They appear to not want to disappoint either parent. Both Y and X have a close relationship with their mother and they also report missing their father when visits are cancelled.

Both Y and X reporter feeling very happy living at home with their mother and that they listen more often to her now than previously. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the security and development of the children are still compromised. It is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of four months. During this period, the father can continue to receive services from an educator to improve his parenting skills and petition the Superior court in order to request visiting rights with his children.

DYP’s intervention must also ensure that the children are not exposed to their parents’ conflicts. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children X, Y and Z; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the father and the children be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, under the following conditions: • ORDERS that the father see the children a minimum of once a week, for a minimum of 6 hours without the presence of his partner, C, unless authorized by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 16 ] ORDERS that the father benefit from the services of an educator and RECOMMENDS that the educator have one visit a week with the father and the children; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to any form of physical, verbal or emotional violence; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the father submit to random drug testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father agrees to submit to random drug testing; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the father participate in the recovery management program at Pavillon A and provide DYP proof of his attendance; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the father participate and complete his parenting classes; [ 21 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father has taken steps to petition Superior Court in order to obtain access rights to his children; [ 22 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother is to receive services from the CLSC; [ 23 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for the period of four months; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X, Y and Z, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 25 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed 9 décembre 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Myriam De Blois (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Christian Benoit (Counsel for the children) Me Judith Shapiro Knight (Counsel for the mother) Me Alexandre Lenis (Counsel for the father) Date of hearing: December 7, 2011