2014 QCCQ 9804, 2014 QCCQ 9804

Protection de la jeunesse — 14904 2014 QCCQ 9804 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] « Youth Protection Division » N° : 455-41-000839-134 DATE : January 21 st , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE BEAUCHESNE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, Born on […], 2004 Child [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker duly authorized by the director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse A, having its head office located at […], in the city and district of Town A, (Quebec), […] .

Petitioner -and- A, residing and domiciled at […], Town B, Quebec, […] Child’s mother -and- B, residing and domiciled at […], Town C, Quebec […] Child’s father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (article 95 par. 1 LPJ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) submits to the Court an amended motion for revision and extension of the order rendered on May 22 nd , 2013, regarding X (X), born on […], 2004 and who is ten (10) years old. [ 2 ] At that time, the Court declares the security and the development of X still in danger and entrusts the child to his maternal grandfather and his spouse, authorizing supervised contacts with his parents. [ 3 ] On November 29 th , 2013, on a provisional measure, the Court entrusts the child to his paternal grandmother, C, following a situation which was not submitted to the Court since he was living with the latter for a few months, without the Court being informed. [ 4 ] At the hearing, all parties are present and represented by counsel.

They agree with the measures suggested by the Director except for the father who asks for extended father-son’s contacts. Update of the situation since the order dated May 22 nd , 2013 [ 5 ] Considering a situation of instability and neglect on the physical and educational level, X was entrusted to his maternal grandfather, Mr. D and his spouse E.

The grandfather became severely ill (cancer) and it is in this context that the paternal grandmother, C, helped the family during the summer. [ 6 ] X regains contacts with his father in mid July 2013 on a regular basis, which were supervised by the Director and as of today, the contacts are positive. [ 7 ] The mother began having contacts since her relocation in Town D in July 2013.

[ 8 ] There were some contacts on July 21 st , August 4 th and 17 th and on September 1 st . The child showed negative reactions for several days following each contact. He started bedwetting for several consecutive nights following each of these contacts. He was very anxious regarding the possibility to meet his mother’s boyfriend. [ 9 ] The last time the child saw his mother was at his grandfather’s funeral in early November. Even during the Christmas Holidays, he did not have any news. [ 10 ] The integration of X at his grandparents’ was made positively.

He finally has answers to his needs and has started improving his behaviour. [ 11 ] He appreciates having a steady source of food provided by his caregiver. He also appreciates the fact of having clean clothes. [ 12 ] X is now ten years old and he continues to take his medication which helps him with his concentration. He is going to his follow-up with his doctor and the school professional. [ 13 ] His sense of self-esteem has increased dramatically since his entrustment.

He now has his own room and play area. [ 14 ] He expressed on more than one occasion his fear to meet F since the Court pronounced an interdiction of contact between them. [ 15 ] The Court notices that X continues to have regular and supervised contacts with his father. He is always happy to see him and misses him between visits.

He does not show any negative reactions after his father’s visits. [ 16 ] As for the father, he has received a diagnosis of bipolarity disorder and a problem of attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and he continues to receive his medication and his follow-up on a monthly basis. [ 17 ] The father took the initiative to of apologizing to X regarding his past actions, explaining that he has made mistakes and that it was unacceptable (physical abuses towards him). [ 18 ] The latter recently began working in a local factory on a night shift.

However, he respects his contact schedules and offers good collaboration with Youth services. [ 19 ] He still abstains from drinking alcohol and using drugs as prescribed by his doctors. The social worker mentioned having supervised many father-child contacts and states that the father was always adequate towards his son. [ 20 ] As for the mother, she received her three oldest children at her place, in Town D, during the months of August, September and October.

They are able to see their younger brother, Shad, during some of these contacts. [ 21 ] The mother also started visiting her fourth child at the paternal grandmother’s home, in Town E, at the beginning of November 2013 when she resumed her relationship with Mr. F. [ 22 ] Since then, she did not have any contacts with her children.

We have to wonder what were her reasons for stoping all types of contacts with them in the past several months. [ 23 ] The mother should continue to participate in her follow-up with Horizon pour Elles to allow her to really work on her weaknesses in order to improve her personal situation. [ 24 ] The mother recognizes that her son is in very good hands with his paternal grandmother and she admits that she is unable to meet all his needs.

She feels that it would be in his best interest to live with his grandmother on a long-term basis. [ 25 ] The Court has to conclude that the mother does not offer any collaboration since the beginning of December 2013. She misses appointments, her supervised visits with her child and did not give X any news since the beginning of this year. [ 26 ] At the hearing, the social worker, Mrs. D, explained that the father is adequate with his son, he did not miss any visits but she wants to take the time to be sure that there will be no trauma to the child when the contacts will not be supervised.

She wants to be sure that he will be able to offer adequate food and follow the necessary steps. [ 27 ] She proposes a

schedule in which the father will be able to take the initiative and be present for his son. [ 28 ] During the cross-examination by the child’s counsel, the social worker was asked if she did not think that the resumption of the contacts was done over a too long period since no negative incident occurred and that the father shows exemplary collaboration. [ 29 ] The Court intervenes and says that indeed it seems to be very long and difficult to set normal and frequent contacts since in the previous order the Court had already mentioned that supervision could be lifted “if the situation allowed it”. [ 30 ] Unfortunately, the social worker did not seem to understand that the wording “if the situation allowed it” meant from the moment that the contacts were going well we could increase the frequency and duration of the contacts and progressively reduce the supervision. [ 31 ] The Court is mentioning its intention to immediately reduce the supervision so that this child can rapidly have some normal contacts with his father.

However, the Court points out that the contacts must be structured in order to respect X’s rhythm and to promote the contacts with his father. [ 32 ] The grandmother, C, also testified. She explains that contrary to the report, it is at the end of June 2013 that the child was entrusted to her.

[ 33 ] She wants to have the necessary authorisations to find solutions to her grandson’s problems, namely she wants the permission to go to Center A in order to help X regarding his anxiety problems and ADDH. [ 34 ] She does not want to have to ask for permission for sleep-overs or certain cares for him, and with reason, she understands that when parents take care of their child, we must ask their permission but to the contrary, in the present case, the mother neglects her role as a caregiver. [ 35 ] She explains that her grandson misses his father and says that now that he has the permission to call him more frequently and to see him during car transportation, he calmer. [ 36 ] During her cross-examination, she learns that the child is on a waiting list for the school psychologist.

She says that X is fragile when there are a lot of persons around but not regarding his father. [ 37 ] She explains that the maternal grandfather’s spouse contacts him occasionally and his sister Hailey sometimes visits him at her place. [ 38 ] The father also testified. Indeed, he was diagnosed with bipolarity. However, ADDH was a wrong diagnosis. [ 39 ] He talks about his new work (4:00 p.m. to midnight from Monday to Friday). He says that he is available on Saturday morning for long contact with his son. [ 40 ] He wishes to have contacts with X and Hailey.

He wants to see him at least once a week during two or three hours and be able to call him two or three time per week. [ 41 ] He explains that it was difficult not to see his son during the last year but he had to deal with Court issues, to stabilize his own situation (bipolarity and pending charges). [ 42 ] He believes that it is possible to re-establish a strong bond with his son since there is one uniting them.

He wants to be involved with him on a long-term basis. [ 43 ] At the hearing, the paternal grandmother seems surprised to hear her son say that he wants to get his son back as soon as the situation allows it. [ 44 ] The child’s counsel asked the father why he didn’t previously inform his mother of his intention to get his son back. He says that “before December 10 th , he was not sure of his sentence in criminal court. Would it be a firm detention or a jail sentence to be served in the community?

Now I know that it is possible to re-establish and regain my paternal role, but I do not want to talk about it to X and give him false hopes”. [ 45 ] He also says that it would be hard for Hailey to accept the situation if her brother X returned with her father but not her. [ 46 ] He understands and commits himself not to talk about this possibility until the situation is presented to the Court and ordered by it. [ 47 ] The social worker mentioned the help that X receives at school and the services of a psychologist. [ 48 ] The Court believes that all the information must be transmitted to the father and the paternal grandmother since they are the ones who are involved with the child on a daily basis. [ 49 ] As for the mother, she declares being very fragile since the death of her father and she is not sure to be able to have contacts with her son before February 2014. [ 50 ] She believes that it is better to have some of her parental attributes withdrawn to avoid signing papers since it is the paternal grandmother, Mrs.

Mathieu, who is aware of the needs of X She is the one who is informed of the different steps regarding his school’s follow-up. [ 51 ] The mother also says that she is ready to continue her individual follow-up with Center B and obtain help from a psychologist. [ 52 ] The evidence showed to the Court leaves no place for doubt. The father is taking charge of his life, takes his medication, abstains from taking any drugs. He is important in his son’s life.

We must then give him all the space needed regarding the possibility for his son to see his father. [ 53 ] The Court authorizes the father to see his son, at his mother’s place as often as he desires while keeping in mind that the contacts must be regular, stable and not create false hopes to this child who has already gone through too much grief regarding his relationship with his parents. Protection measures [ 54 ] After looking at the documentary evidence and hearing the representations of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the child must be entrusted to his paternal grand-mother, Mrs.

C. [ 55 ] The present judgment completes and confirms each and every observation made by the Court in the presence of the parties. [ 56 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 57 ] GRANTS the present motion;

[ 58 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 59 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on May 22 nd , 2013, in the present file; [ 60 ] ENTRUSTS the child X to his paternal grandmother, Mrs.

C; [ 61 ] ORDERS that the modalities of the contacts between the father and the X be established following agreement between the parties, failing agreement ORDERS that the child benefit from contacts with his father as follows: - For the months of February and March: one day a week without sleep-over; - For the months of April and May: two days a week including one sleep-over; - From the month of June 2014: from Friday to Sunday and the Court recommends that we encourage contacts with the father following the evolution of the situation. [ 62 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child X and his mother be under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection of Le Centre jeunesse de la Montérégie in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection and allow the parties to end the supervision upon agreement between the parties if the situation allows it; [ 63 ] WITHDRAWS certain rights of the parental authority from the mother and AUTHORIZES Mrs.

C, the grandmother, to sign authorizations required for medical, school, recreational, extra-curricular or travel purposes and application for passport; [ 64 ] FORBIDS any contacts between X and Mr. F; [ 65 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child X and his family until July 12 th , 2014; [ 66 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child X take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 67 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that the mother agrees to undergo a psychologic evaluation and follow-ups by the CLSC; [ 68 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ JULIE BEAUCHESNE, J.C.Q. Me Louise Martel, Youth Protection Counsel Me Maryse Pinsonneault, Counsel of the child Me Marie-Ève Beaudoin, Counsel of the mother Me Pascale Gauthier, Counsel of the father Date of hearing: January 21 st , 2014