2012 QCCQ 13260, 2012 QCCQ 13260

Protection de la jeunesse — 124618 2012 QCCQ 13260 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-025815-127 DATE: September 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant - and - X Born on […] - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 10, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the child declared compromised under

section 38

b) and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motion are the following: • The child’s situation was known to the Director of Youth Protection and the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, for issues pertaining to the mother’s lifestyle; • From the month of September 2011 until April 2012, the family received social services under an Agreement on Voluntary Measures; • Said measures provided for a social follow-up in order to stabilize the mother’s personal situation and to ensure the child's safety at home; • The mother has five other minor children, none of whom are in her care; • The mother has a history of emotional instability, of past suicidal ideation and on-going conflict with neighbours, which on occasion required police intervention; • The mother has had to move three times since September 2011, thus creating instability for X; • The mother is presently involved in a conflict with a neighbour which has deteriorated to the point where she has the intention to move again in the near future; • The mother currently experiences serious health issues which have led to some emotional outbursts; • In January 2012, the mother was heard swearing at the police officers who had presented themselves at her home after receiving

complaints from a neighbour; • Information is to the effect that the mother is often heard screaming, stomping and swearing in her apartment; • The mother has been heard yelling at X and threatening to bring out the belt if “he does not stop”; • The mother continues to have serious anger management problems; • The mother is currently involved with an educator and she has made gains in her parenting skills; • The mother continues to use marijuana occasionally but not in the presence of X. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to his mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion.

She agrees for DYP to continue to be involved with the family, but only for a period of six months. The mother consents to collaborate with the educator. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in X’s best interest. Me De Lagrave states that there have been improvements since the family has been receiving the services of an educator and therefore agrees with the mother that a social follow-up for a period of six months is sufficient.

However, Me De Lagrave reiterates the importance for the mother to collaborate with DYP. [ 7 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mr. [social worker 1], youth worker, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the mother suffers from anxiety and has difficulty controlling her temper. However, the mother has a close relationship with X and meets his educational and developmental needs. She also has been collaborating adequately with the educator.

However, the mother continues to need the support of DYP to work on her anger management and her relations with others. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of six months.

The mother started working with the educator in March 2012 and continued to do so even after the voluntary measures had expired. [ 9 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are compromised. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to his mother’s care; [ 14 ] ORDERS the mother to take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 15 ] ORDERS the mother not to be under the influence or use illicit drugs when X is in her care; [ 16 ] ORDERS the mother to submit to random testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother’s consent to submit to random drug testing; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in individual counselling to address her personal issues and that she follow the recommendations of her treating professionals; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to involve herself in all appropriate community supports; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother keep the youth worker informed of her medical condition; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the family continue to receive the services of an educator; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his mother for a period of six months; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 23 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on September 13, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Carole De Lagrave Counsel for the child Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: September 10, 2012