2020 QCCQ 6323, 2020 QCCQ 6323

Protection de la jeunesse — 205812 2020 QCCQ 6323 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005135-168 DATE: February 12, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2007 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the revision and extension of a judgment pronounced on July 17, 2019 in regards to the child X.

In virtue of such, the Court orders the continued placement of the child with her maternal grandmother as well as structured contacts with her parents. Other measures of aid and protection accompany these until December 31, 2019. [ 2 ] Measures of protection apply as to the child’s two other siblings, Y and Z. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the circumstances now justify that the Court proceeds to a permanency plan stabilizing the child with her grandmother until her majority.

Furthermore, as the father fails to invest himself in the follow-up nor the visitation, the Director also seeks that his contacts with the children be reduced to one weekend a month. [ 4 ] Although the father was duly served of the proceedings, he is absent from the hearing. The mother subscribes to the Director’s position. As for X, she reluctantly accepts the orientation, underlining her continued with to live with her mother. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] X continues to reside with her maternal grandmother, where she evolves positively.

She benefits from a psychological follow- up. [ 7 ] Her mother remaining invested in the rehabilitation process, one of the main objectives of the last judgment is to verify the viability of X’s progressive reintegration in her care, the whole within the context of the expiration of the maximum delays of placement. [ 8 ] The evidence demonstrates that such is not the case at this time, rendering necessary to stabilize the child on a permanent basis in her grandmother’s care. [ 9 ] Extensions of the contact periods since the last judgment emphasize the difficulties in place and the importance of the rehabilitation which remains. [ 10 ] The mother’s various challenges remain significant both on a physical and psychological level, despite her efforts to address them.

Fatigue and depression are a regularly observed. The whole continues to impact her abilities to see to her parental responsibilities on a constant basis. Such being the case, she remains available to continue to work on her parenting skills and collaborate with the social follow-up.

[ 11 ] Although here is a strong bond between X and her mother, a certain reversal of roles exist, as X can take on a protecting role towards her mother and assume responsibilities which are not her own during their visits.

This also generates anxiety and opposition on her part. [ 12 ] As to X’s contacts with her father, the last judgment put in place the following as to the contacts with the children: ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be following an agreement between the parties and in the absence of an agreement that they will occur every second weekend from Saturday to Sunday; TAKES ACT that the father will be available and present during the contacts and that there will be an elaboration of a contract as to the children’s routine; [ 13 ] It is pertinent to note that this access

schedule is maintained despite the Director’s request for a reduction relating to a myriad of concerns as regards the father’s parental capacities, environment and collaboration. The Court cites its reasoning: [54] There are adjustments required to ensure that his children are maintained in their routine during his access periods. This will be necessary in order to maintain the access at its present level.

The father agrees to cooperate in this vein and also names certain imminent changes in his employment and living environment which will also alleviate the difficulties observed. [55] Overall, the evidence convinces the Court that with certain adjustments destined to ensure the beneficial nature of contacts between the children and their father, it is possible to maintain the access

schedule in place. [ 14 ] Although the father verbalizes wanting to remain involved in his children’s lives, he fails to resolve the clearly identified issues nor follow through on his commitments. [ 15 ] Remains minimal his implication with social services and the elaboration of the intervention plan. Consequently, the caseworkers are unable to address their concerns involving his weekend structure and routine. No agreement nor contract is able to be put in place. [ 16 ] The father remains inconsistent in his contacts due to his work schedule.

He misses more than half of his weekends, the last visit being in December 2019. He also continues to live in his small apartment, contrary to his affirmations that he would move to a more appropriate living space permitting that the children have a bedroom and a more adequate living space. [ 17 ] This ongoing situation continues to reverberate on the children on many levels. [ 18 ] After the contacts, the children are tired and their hygiene is neglected.

They are irritable and it takes approximately two days for them to return to their routine. [ 19 ] The children state their ongoing disappointment at their father’s cancellation of contacts. Z often verbalizes not wanting to go to his father’s. Y expresses wanting to see his father more often, but not with overnights (a few hours, in his words). [ 20 ] The evidence demonstrates that the concerns in place at the last hearing remain unresolved and that the children continue to suffer from these.

The father’s personal situation being unchanged and his cooperation minimal, the Court cannot count on his active participation to make the adjustments that were clearly denounced in the last judgment. [ 21 ] The children require a stable and beneficial relationship with their father, which is clearly not possible in the present circumstances. As such, the reduction of the contacts represents the children’s best interests and the Court endorses the Director’s recommendation. [ 22 ] Furthermore, a clear and consistent commitment is required from the father towards this objective.

To this end, the Court orders that the contacts be subject to his investing himself in the establishment of adequate conditions for the children during the visitation, including the physical environment and routine. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of a Court order; [ 24 ] DECLARES the security and the development of the child still in danger; [ 25 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on July 17, 2019; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her maternal grandmother Mrs.

C; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her mother be following agreement between the parties and in the absence of agreement that they take place every second weekend; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be following agreement between the parties and respecting the child’s expressed wishes.

Furthermore, these contacts are conditional to the following : • That the father meet with the caseworker in order to establish a calendar of contacts as well as a contract regarding the children’s routine; • That the father gives regular access to his home, so the caseworker can verify the respect of the agreements; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered;

[ 30 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 31 ] ALL THESE MEASURES until the child’s majority, on [...], 2025; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Adrienne Fournier-Sirois Attorney for the applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 12, 2020 Date of signature: March 19, 2020