2015 QCCQ 8891, 2015 QCCQ 8891

Protection de la jeunesse — 15759 2015 QCCQ 8891 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 105-41-000383-159 DATE: March 2, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], authorized person by the DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner and X born on […], 2014 Child and A and 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 Court is seized with a petition for protection concerning the child and her sister. The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks for measures to apply until March 31, 2016 and that the children to be maintained with their parents. [ 2 ] The sister Y, born on […], 2012, is aimed by the same request.

The parties agree to present a common proof. [ 3 ] On March 23, 2012, Justice Robert Levesque rendered a decision declaring the security and development of Y’s compromise, such decision, to be apply for a period of a year. At the time, the collaboration of the parents during the follows up was positive. [ 4 ] Even if the parents mostly deny or ignore the allegations, they agree with the recommendations of the DYP. They also agree with the deposit of the reports to value the testimony of their authors.

Furthermore, the father wishes to testify to bring some explanations of his own. [ 5 ] The father is basically relating to the Court, that he denies that they don’t attend their medical appointments. First, he explains that it took a delay before they could get an appointment with Dr. Leblanc (orthopedist) for X. Even if they called right after they received the diagnostic from Chandler hospital. They were waiting for the call from the assistant of Dr. Leblanc from Maria hospital. For the other appointments, he mentions that some of them were missed because of the weather conditions (storms).

He specifies that all children’s needs have been met. [ 6 ] He testifies that when they went to the CLSC in City A to meet with the ergo therapist, they were told, Y was advancing well, and that it will be her last appointment. He pretends that the ergo therapist only came to their home, once within a period of two years. [ 7 ] He also mentions that Y doesn’t have severe developmental delays, as indicated in the assessment of the ergo therapist.

He says only a little delay. [ 8 ] In regards with his poor collaboration with the professionals, the only explanation given were they requested the follows up be nearest to the area. In fact, that they could be done in City B or City C instead of City D. Because of the transportation problems, and that they have another child to care for. [ 9 ] The child’s lawyer declares having a legal mandate, and after hearing the position of the parties, she agrees with the

recommendations and the deposit of all the reports. [ 10 ] Despite the opinion of the father in regards of the development delays sustained by Y, it is not consistent with the evidence. Even if we can notice that the father loves and cares deeply for his children, he has tendencies to diminish the gravity of their problems. In fact, when he was young, the father also suffered of plagiocephaly. He seems not to take it seriously saying that is not a matter of concern. [ 11 ] In the case of Y, who is almost three years old, she suffered of plagiocephaly, for which she was not properly taken care of.

Unfortunately, now nothing can be done to correct it. She has major delays in regard of her development, notably her speech, locomotion and fine motor skills. Moreover, she is lacking stimulation. Because she was neglected, she now accumulates severe setback in her development. According to the analysis of the ergo therapist, her development delay is comparable to an eleventh month’s old child. [ 12 ] The evidence demonstrates that X also suffers from a developmental problem and suffers severe plagiocephaly. Her state requires many follow up.

It seems that the parents repeat the same pattern that they did with Y. [ 13 ] The evidence also reveals that the parents are neglecting to attend medical appointments for the children. Afterwards, they do not apply, or they ignore the measures suggested by the professionals. Moreover, they seem to have conflicts with a few interveners involved with the health and care of their children. [ 14 ] The mother has cognitive limits, which could affect her parental skills, but she can answer the basic needs of the children. [ 15 ] However, the parents are willing to cooperate with the DYP and the services.

In the past, they have proven their collaboration with DYP and it went very well. [ 16 ] At the hearing, the father reassures the court by recognizing, the importance for his children to be followed by an ergo therapist. He intends to pursue. [ 17 ] The fact that they already collaborate well with the DYP in the past, leads this Court to believe that the suggested measures are appropriated.

However, the parents will have to involve themselves in the process in order for these measures to be a success. [ 18 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the children are in danger. [ 19 ] The petition is well founded, in the children’s best interest. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the petition for protection; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered as endanger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 22 ] ORDERS that X be maintained with her parents ; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures intended to put and end to the situation of endangerment ; [ 24 ] ORDERS that X receive all medical and social care that are necessary to her situation ; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES all the professionals involved in the situation of X to exchange all information relevant to the children well- being ; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to X and her family until March 31, 2016 ; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the director of youth protection of the Centre A for the carrying out of the judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Melissa Plourde for the petitioner Me Florence Frappier-Routhier for the child

Me Hugo Caissy for the parents Date of hearing: March 2, 2015 Written judgment filed on March 20, 2015