2017 QCCQ 6500, 2017 QCCQ 6500

Protection de la jeunesse — 172870 2017 QCCQ 6500 JH5272 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Nos. 525-41-025097-114 525-41-025098-112 525-41-025099-110 DATE: March 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X (Born on [...], 2004) Y (Born on [...], 2008) Z (Born on [...], 2006) and DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and A B Parents–Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] on final measures [ 1 ] Since the November 23, 2016 interim order, the following new facts have arisen: the Sunday afternoon visits with the father, under the paternal grandmother’s supervision, have gone well.

X and Y have taken

part in them. Z still refuses them. [ 2 ] The relationship between the parents is still tense. The Director’s continued intervention remains essential. It sets up ways to communicate, which would otherwise be impossible. It should be pointed out that Mr. B is prohibited from contacting the mother. [ 3 ] However, even if the parents are sometimes reluctant to do so, they cooperate meaningfully with the intervention, in particular for the purpose of managing X’s worrisome behaviour. [ 4 ] X seems to be increasingly out of control. He is arrogant, aggressive and contemptuous toward his mother and siblings.

He has been repeatedly suspended from school. [ 5 ] The Director does not request X’s placement because a substantial intervention structure has been implemented and will hopefully yield results

[ 6 ] The mother is not that optimistic and considers instead that her son has been in free fall. It should be noted that X always pushes Y and Z, to the point where he injured his sister in the schoolyard. [ 7 ] X’s harmful attitude has an impact on Y. Peaceful and conciliating by nature, she is beginning to display similar behaviour. [ 8 ] In the circumstances, increasing the father’s access does not appear appropriate. Out of the three children, the only one doing well is still Z, who has no contact with Mr. B.

Hence, the current frequency must be continued so that the children can calm down without being exposed to the tensions between the parents. [ 9 ] X will not obtain any more contact, regardless of his attitude. He must understand that the decision is not his. [ 10 ] Moreover, the father would like the children to undergo a new psychological assessment. The Court does not see the point of it. The three children have already participated in therapy. Through the Director’s personalized intervention, they are well known and supported.

A new assessment with issues that are tacit, but known to the children, would not be in their interest. [ 11 ] As for the access rights requested by Mr. B, despite the Director’s opinion, the Court intends to exercise its double jurisdiction and settle the disagreement with this decision. [ 12 ] The Director recommended one-year social follow-up. Given the parents’ communication problems and the father’s trial before the Criminal Division in April 2018, that period of time will not be sufficient.

It will be extended until the fall of 2018. [ 13 ] Lastly, there is reason to issue an order that is flexible enough to allow the parties to progress and the Director to do his work.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still compromised; [ 15 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out: [ 16 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 17 ] ORDERS that contacts between the children and their father be the following: - every Wednesday for 2 hours under the supervision of the Director; - every second Sunday from 12:00 pm till 6:00 pm in the presence of C or D; - these contacts will be conditional to the father’s compliance with his psychiatric treatment for which he will provide proof to the Director; - these contacts will also be conditional to the children’s consent, to be verified by the Director; After six (6) months , the contacts’

schedule may be modified with the consent of all parties; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr. [Social Worker 1] remains as the Director’s delegate for the family for as long as possible; [ 19 ] REGARDING X, AUTHORIZES the Director to resort to respite care in a rehabilitation center for a maximum of 5 consecutive days at a frequency not exceeding once a month; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents; [ 21 ] THE WHOLE until October 1st, 2018. Signed in City A, April 26, 2017 _______________________________ PATRICE HURTUBISE J.C.Q. Mtre. Sym Davis Counsel for DYP

Mtre. Marc Morin Counsel for the children Mtre. Linda Renaud Counsel for the mother Mtre. Nathalie Tremblay Counsel for the father Hearing date: March 6, 2017 [1] WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.).