2021 QCCQ 10715, 2021 QCCQ 10715

Protection de la jeunesse — 214780 2021 QCCQ 10715 JB5047 QUEBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] “Youth division” N o : 460-41-002014-207 , 460-41-002015-204 DATE: June 18, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2018 Y Born on [...], 2017 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of CIUSSS A; Applicant -and- A -and- B (X) -and- UNDECLARED FATHER (

Y) Children’s parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT CORRIGÉ [1] ______________________________________________________________________ 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.).

Introduction [ 1 ] The Director is requesting the revision of the Court order rendered on August 14, 2020. [ 2 ] By this order, the Tribunal declared the security and development of the children X and Y were still in danger for the motives of educational neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] As protective measures, the Court entrusted the children to Ms. C, authorized in the children’s favour supervised contacts with the mother, by a third party designated by the Director, taking note that this party will be Ms.

C and that their frequency and modality will be upon agreement between the parties, took notice of Ms. C’s consent to supervise and the possibility of lifting the said supervision with the mother according to the evolution of the situation. [ 4 ] The Court also authorized in favour of the child X supervised contacts with his father, by an authorized third party, upon

agreement and according to the modalities set with the Director. [ 5 ] The Court authorized the possibility of reintegration into the maternal family environment as soon as the situation allowed, made various recommendations to the parents and ordered a social follow-up for a period of nine months. [ 6 ] Today, the Director considers that the security and the development of the children are still in danger for the same motives. [ 7 ] Because of the new facts alleged, the Director recommends revising the protective measures so that the Court entrusts the children to their mother, authorizes supervised contacts with the father subsequent to an agreement and according to the modalities established with the Director, and authorizes that the supervision of the contacts be lifted if the evolution of the situation allows upon agreement between the parties, makes various recommendations to the parents and orders a social follow-up until February 28, 2022. [ 8 ] At the hearing on June 18, 2021, the mother is present and represented by a lawyer.

She agrees with the recommended measures. [ 9 ] The father is present but not represented. He agrees with the recommended measures but would like to have a greater access to the children, without supervision. [ 10 ] The children’s lawyer agrees with the recommendations of the Director. Evolution of the situation [ 11 ] Following the last Court order, Y (4 years old) and X (3 years old) remained entrusted to Ms. C. They function well in her environment. [ 12 ] Y will be attending school in a kindergarten class next fall.

X will be in daycare as of the end of summer. [ 13 ] Y’s language delay has resorbed as it is possible to observe improvements in her vocabulary and expressions. The child received speech therapy and advice was given to Ms. C to better develop the child’s skills. [ 14 ] There is currently no indication of developmental delay for X. [ 15 ] The mother maintained regular supervised contacts with her children.

The contacts appeared generally positive, so the supervision was lifted in January 2021. [ 16 ] Since March 2021, a gradual reintegration of the children into their mother’s home has been initiated, supported by an external readaptation follow-up by an educator. [ 17 ] Negative reactions were observed following extended contacts in the maternal environment. [ 18 ] On one occasion, the mother had friends over and the children were disturbed.

The mother recognized that she should have been alone with the children and did not repeat this situation. [ 19 ] As for the mother, she maintained a follow-up at the CSSS in order to work on emotional management, the prevention of temper tantrums, impulsivity and the expression of her disagreements with Youth Protection services. [ 20 ] As positive development was observed and objectives were achieved, the CSSS put an end to the follow-up in November 2020. [ 21 ] Since May 2020, the mother has maintained a follow-up with La Maison des Familles and she collaborates well. [ 22 ] Some elements remain to be worked on in the context of the follow-up with La Maison des Familles , in particular with regard to the application of positive educational practices. [ 23 ] As for her collaboration with the Director, in the beginning, the mother was suspicious and reluctant towards psychosocial follow-up as well as in acknowledging the compromising motives. [ 24 ] In recent months, the mother has been offering a better collaboration to the Director. [ 25 ] In May 2021, the mother quit her job impulsively in order to be more available to the children but she says she is struggling financially. [ 26 ] She was fined for speeding and lost her driving licence, but resolved the situation the same day. [ 27 ] She has put an end to her previous relationship but is pregnant from this man.

She is considering an abortion. [ 28 ] Regarding the father, the children have benefited from supervised contacts with him every two weeks as well as one telephone contact per week. [ 29 ] Supervised visits with the father generally goes well, but negative reactions from the children are observed when they return to their foster family. [ 30 ] The father took steps to obtain professional follow-up for his problematic consumption, but the services were refused given the fact that the father indicated that he had no difficulties.

He admits consuming cannabis daily to be functional. [ 31 ] The father did not take any steps to obtain a medical follow-up. In the context of psychosocial follow-up, the father is passive.

The measures [ 32 ] The Court can observe that the mother has greatly mobilized herself and worked on herself. [ 33 ] She is able to better control her impulsivity, can receive comments and recognizes now the situation of compromission. [ 34 ] She is now proactive to answer her children’s needs. She was the one who took the necessary steps to register Y to kindergarten and X to daycare. [ 35 ] She has a good therapeutical relationship with Ms.

Kennel. [ 36 ] Despite some difficulties in the beginning, she has been able to maintain a good relationship with the foster mother. [ 37 ] She has to maintain her efforts and her collaboration with the different services involved. [ 38 ] The present objective is to stabilize the children. [ 39 ] Because they have been spending a lot of time with their mother and with Ms.

C, they are now insecure and react to the back and forth. [ 40 ] Although the mother still presents with some fragilities, the Court agrees that it is in the best interest of the children to be completely entrusted to their mother’s care. [ 41 ] As for the father, the Court finds that the expectations of the Director do not take into consideration the cultural background of their father. [ 42 ] Nonetheless, the father must improve his parental skills to ensure a better frame and discipline with the children. [ 43 ] His access rights should progressively be broadened. [ 44 ] She is even open to have the children continue to visit M.s C if they wish. [ 45 ] Having read the report and heard the mother’s testimony, the Court finds that the evolution of the situation gives way to the recommended measures.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of the children X and Y are in danger; REVISE the Court order rendered on August 14, 2020, in the present file; ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; AUTHORIZES in the children’s best interest supervised contacts with their father, subsequent to an agreement and according to the modalities established with the Director of Youth Protection; AUTHORIZES , if the evolution of the situation allows it, that the supervision of the contacts between the father and the children be lifted, upon agreement between the parties; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures ordered to end the compromising situation, namely that they collaborate to the psychosocial follow-up and to the application of the intervention plan; TAKES NOTICE of the mother’s engagement to maintain her participation with the services provided, for the time deemed necessary by the professionals; ORDERS that the parents periodically report to the Director of Youth Protection of the means they put in place for themselves or for the children to put an end to the compromising situation; ORDERS that a person working for CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children X and Y and their family until February 28, 2022; ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ PASCALE BERARDINO, J.C.Q.

M e Pascal Gauthier Counsel for the DYP

M e René Sévigny Counsel for the children M e Érica Gosselin Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: June 18, 2021 Deposited exhibits: D-8 and D-9 Date of written judgment: August 11, 2021