2020 QCCQ 9499, 2020 QCCQ 9499

Protection de la jeunesse — 207439 2020 QCCQ 9499 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 550-41-003213-186 DATE: December 9 th , 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X Child a B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 75, Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 of a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act in relation to the situation of the child X, aged 4, whereby the Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is seeking the revision and extension of the decision rendered by this Court on November 5 th , 2019. [ 2 ] On that date, the undersigned entrusted the child to her great grandparents Mr. C and Mrs.

D for a period of six months, after which she was to return to the mother’s environment. [ 3 ] Alleging that the mother’s situation remains highly unstable while the father’s situation has significantly improved, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to her father and his spouse, Mrs. E, for a period of nine months, and that the contacts between the child and her mother be determined by agreement between the parties. [ 4 ] The mother admits most of the facts alleged in support of the motion, with some clarifications.

Her wish is for the child to remain under the care of the great grandparents and that the situation be reassessed in six months. The father admits the facts as they relate to him and he agrees with the proposed revision and extension of the measures. The child’s counsel, acting under a legal mandate, argues that the child is doing well in her current environment and considers the proposed return under the father’s care to be premature. [ 5 ] All parties agree that the Director’s involvement remains necessary.

The sole contested issue is whether the child should be maintained under the care of her great grandparents or whether she should be entrusted to her father. A. ANALYSIS [ 6 ] The Director became involved with this family in March 2017 amidst concerns with the parents’ drug use as well as with the child’s hygiene and unsanitary home living conditions. [ 7 ] When the parents separated in June 2017, mother and child moved in with the great grandparents for a time.

The matter was brought to Court following several voluntary measures. [ 8 ] On October 30 th , 2018, the undersigned declared the security and development of the child to be endangered as a result of a situation of physical neglect and entrusted her to the great grandparents for a period of nine months. At the time, the mother had difficulty keeping her apartment clean and needed help to address her personal difficulties, including depression with which she was struggling since childhood. As to the father, he was described as was a caring and gentle father who was also struggling to keep his

apartment clean and to maintain a regular visiting

schedule with his daughter. He was difficult then to get a hold of and offered wavering collaboration to the Director’s staff. [ 9 ] A year later, the mother’s ability to keep her apartment clean improved and she had begun receiving services to improve her parental skills. However, her mental health remained unstable, preventing her from taking care of her daughter on a full-time basis.

As to the father, he had gone through a period of housing instability and had yet to receive the recommended services to improve his parental skills. [ 10 ] It is in this context and with the agreement of all parties that on November 5 th , 2019, the undersigned ordered that the child remain under the care of her great grandparents for a period of six months, with a view to reintegrate her mother’s milieu. The Court found that there was no need to supervise the father’s access to the child, but strongly encouraged him to take the necessary steps to receive services in order to improve his parental skills. 1.

Evolution of the situation

a) The mother [ 11 ] The mother has been through a difficult year. She has experienced severe instability in various aspects of her life, including with regards to her relationships, her drug consumption and her mental health. She reports having hallucinations and multiple personalities and her discourse is sometimes confused [ 12 ] On July 25 th , 2020, the mother attempted suicide by taking a large amount of pills. At the time, the child was under her care and asleep in her bed. Thankfully, the mother sought help.

Concerns with her mental health remain, however. [ 13 ] The social worker from the CLSC offering mental health support to the mother testified that she is currently using too much drugs (cannabis and speed) and that this interferes with her mental health. Although the mother is collaborating, she is highly unstable and not always in control. [ 14 ] The mother has recently begun receiving services with regards to her drug consumption. She says she has stopped using speed.

The situation remains fragile. [ 15 ] The mother’s relationship with the father has improved and they are able to discuss how to maintain regular contacts with the child in the event that she is entrusted back to either of them. As to the mother’s relationship with the great grandparents, it remains conflictual, although efforts are made not to argue in the presence of the child. [ 16 ] Since July 2020, the mother’s contacts are supervised (by the great grandparents). The mother lives across the street from the daycare, which enables her to see her daughter almost every day.

b) The father [ 17 ] The father’s collaboration has significantly improved since the last ruling. He has been in a relationship with his partner Mrs. E for close to two years and this has brought much stability in his life. The couple is living in the same house for a year and a half and the place is well suited to raise a child. [ 18 ] The father is currently on a waiting list to receive services to improve his parental abilities. He is transparent about his past difficulties and admits that he used to drink a lot, but he has now turned the corner and has been sober for close to three years.

He occasionally smokes marijuana, but not often and only in small quantities (0.5gr every 2 months). There is no evidence that this has any impact on his ability to take care his daughter. [ 19 ] The father makes it clear that he has no intention of taking the child away from her current daycare should she be entrusted to him. He knows she has many friends there and is strongly attached to them. He also recognises that the child is very attached to her mother and that it is important that she sees her regularly.

The father also maintains a positive collaboration with the great grandparents. [ 20 ] Although they were suspended for a short while during the first wave of the pandemic, contacts are currently taking place every weekend at the father’s residence. The child also spent 5 days at her father’s place in August 2020. The contacts are positive and the child has a good relationship with her father and his spouse.

c) The child [ 21 ] X is a sweet, energetic and very bright little girl who asks a lot of questions. She has a strong bond with the people around her, particularly with her mother. She has been attending the same daycare for quite some time and has grown much attached to the place and the people there. [ 22 ] Everyone agrees that the child is evolving positively under the care of the great grandparents, with whom she has been living for more than two years.

While the great grandparents clearly adore her and are more than happy to keep taking care of her for the next little while, they recognise that they cannot realistically commit for the long term given their age (the great grandmother is 69 years old). B. CONCLUSION [ 23 ]

Section 4 of the Y.P.A. states that “[e]very decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment.” Ideally, the child would be entrusted to both her parents so that she can spend equal time with them. Unfortunately, this is not possible at this time given the mother’s ongoing difficulties. [ 24 ] The father’s own difficulties prevented him from being more involved in the first two years of the child’s life. He has now

stabilised his situation and has made significant progress. He wants to assume his responsibilities and play his role as a father. There is no compelling reason why he shouldn’t.

While there is still room for improvement, the evidence reveals no significant concern with the father’s current environment in a way that would prevent the child from being entrusted under his care and that of his partner. [ 25 ] The fact that the father recognises that the child would benefit from continuing to attend the same daycare shows that he is sensitive to her needs and that he is willing and able to make decisions with her best interest in mind.

The Court is convinced that he will also collaborate to ensure that the child maintains regular contacts with her mother and her great grandparents, to whom the child is greatly attached. [ 26 ] At present, the concerns with the mother’s mental stability and drug consumption are serious.

Prior to allowing unsupervised contacts with her daughter, the Director will need to carefully monitor the situation and ensure that mother’s situation is stable and that she is fit to ensure her safety. [ 27 ] Both parents must follow-up on their commitment to receive services if we are to envisage an end to the Director’s involvement. The mother clearly needs care and services to stabilise her mental health and to keep her drug consumption under control.

As for the father, he needs to follow-up on his commitment to receive services for his parental abilities. [ 28 ] Finally, a duration of 6 months is sufficient under the current circumstances, particularly in light of the fact that the mother’s situation is evolving and considering the new changes introduced as a result of this decision. [ 29 ] THEREFORE THE COURT : [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the decision or order rendered on November 5, 2019; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of child continues to be in danger; [ 33 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following protection measures:

a) That the child be entrusted to her father and his spouse, Mrs. E, for a period of 6 months;

b) That the contacts between the child and his mother be determined by agreement between the parties; if there is no agreement, the contacts will be supervised;

c) That regular contacts between the child and her great grandparents be encouraged and determined by agreement between the parties;

d) That the parents report every two weeks to the Director of youth protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger;

e) That the parents collaborate to the social follow-up, notably in the elaboration and the application of the intervention plan;

f) That the child receive all the health care required by her state;

g) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection A Integrated Health and Social Services Center provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of 6 months; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS :

a) That the mother receive services in order to stabilise her mental health as well as to address her substance abuse;

b) That the child continue to attend the same daycare and TAKES NOTES that the parents agree; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. Signed on December 9 th , 2020. __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. M e Kevin Dupéré Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection M e Marie-Christine Fournier Counsel for the child

M e Manon Guitard Counsel for the mother M e Marc Doyon Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 22 nd , 2020; November 6 th , 2020.