r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 12630

Protection de la jeunesse — 165494 2016 QCCQ 12630 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-00004378-124 DATE: July 6, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2006 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A 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 ] Context [ 2 ] On December 8, 2015, the Court renders a decision in the situation of the child X, partially revising the protective measures put in place as of June 12 of the same year. As well as maintaining the child in a reception center, the Court revises his contacts with his mother to provide supervision.

Various other measures remain in force until June 12, 2016. [ 3 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the extension of the previous order for one year, alleging that the situation of endangerment remains and that the child requires continued rehabilitation. [ 4 ] The parents consign their admissions. The mother doesn’t contest the orientation sought by the Director.

She offers her continued efforts and participation in view of evolving her son’s situation and more notably justifying the eventual withdrawal of the supervision of their contacts. [ 5 ] The father remands the decision to the Court’s discretion, although he seeks clarification as the orientation in regards to a resumption of his contacts with his son. [ 6 ] Through his attorney, X declares being in agreement with the Director’s evaluation and suggested orientation. [ 7 ] Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Since the last judgment, X remains in a rehabilitation center. [ 9 ] In this environment and with coaching from the educators, there is a progressive improvement of his behaviours and functioning.

Although crises are still present, they diminish in frequency and intensity. [ 10 ] X receives an individual intervention plan in his school setting, which promotes his academic performance. He also benefits from other ongoing services, including a follow-up through Santé mentale jeunesse . [ 11 ] The parent’s situations and involvement as to the intervention remain relatively unchanged.

Both offer an uneven collaboration with the Director and maintain perceptions which contribute to the maintenance of the situation of endangerment. [ 12 ] The mother still struggles with physical and mental health issues which can affect her ability to perceive her son’s needs and respond to these. Although the weekly supervised contacts are generally positive, they remain sometimes tainted by the mother’s

anxiety, which overwhelms X and provokes his problematic behaviours. As such, the Court’s previous determinations as to the structure of the contacts, remains pertinent: [26] At the present time, the supervision of the contacts offers the security net required keeping X at bay of situations which compound his already existing anxiety and fragilities. There remains a need to work towards normalizing the contacts between X and his mother and, at present, the intervention is ongoing to this effect.

X is gaining forces and understanding, as is his mother. [ 13 ] The dialogue between the Director and the father continues, although little effective progress ensues in view of the father’s unwavering perceptions concerning the sources of the situation of endangerment and his involvement in these. [ 14 ] X clearly indicates not wishing any contacts with his father at the present time. References to his father provoke emotional reactions. [ 15 ] X is still struggling with the dysfunctional family dynamic to which he has been exposed since his infancy.

The bond with his mother dictates exclusivity based on their shared status as victims of conjugal violence. As such, X perceives his father in a very negative light and he maintains significant anger in relation to him. [ 16 ] X needs to develop his own opinion and not have a situation dictated to him. The therapeutic process in place is helping him identify his anger and deepen his understanding as to his family history.

Although progress is slow, it is encouraging. [ 17 ] The overall situation dictates the extension of the prohibition of contacts with his father, save for therapeutic reasons should it be recommended by the mental health professional. The parties agree to such. [ 18 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are still in danger.

The Court endorses the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of X's best interests and represent a coherent orientation towards responding to his needs for stability and neutrality. [ 19 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child still in danger; [ 22 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on December 8, 2015; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be maintained in a rehabilitation centre ; [ 24 ] FORBIDS the contacts between the child and his father safe for therapeutic reasons, upon recommendations of the health care professionals; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be established upon agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection, and in the absence of agreement that they take place: - on weeks not including a pedagogical day, once for a period of 2h00; - on pedagogical days for a period of 4h00; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the withdrawal of supervision as to the mother's contact following mutual agreement between the mother and the Director of Youth Protection and following the father being advised of said withdrawal; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father reports at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform of his the current situation as well as to the measures he applies to put an end to the situation of endangerment; [ 29 ] TAKES ACT of the father consent that the Director of Youth Protection have access to his follow-up with Via L'Anse; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between the Director and the specialists implicated with the child; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provided aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 32 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of one year; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Ève Garceau Attorney for the Petitioner Me Mélodie Verreault Nantel

Attorney for the mother Me Yann Trignac Attorney for the father Me Malyka Jean Baptiste Attorney for the child Date of hearing: July 6, 2016