2016 QCCQ 17908, 2016 QCCQ 17908

Protection de la jeunesse — 168823 2016 QCCQ 17908 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029280-153 DATE : July 14, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...], 2011 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on July 14 th , 2016. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision and extension of a decision rendered by the undersigned on June 12 th , 2015. The Director is asking that the child continue to be entrusted to her mother, at the exclusion of the father, and that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The motion was dully served to the father but he is not present at the hearing.

His position is unknown. [ 4 ] The mother admits all the facts alleged in the motion and is in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. [ 5 ] Counsel for the child makes no admission but is in agreement with the recommendations of the Director. CONTEXT [ 6 ] Following the order rendered on June 12 th , 2015, it took the intervention of the Director for the mother to accept that the child attend daycare, as court ordered. Despite arrangements made for the child to attend [daycare A], free of charge, the mother explained that she did not want to wake-up the child to attend daycare.

Finally, at the end of June 2015, the child began attending daycare, as court

ordered. After a short period, the mother acknowledged that the child attending daycare was beneficial for the child as well as for herself. [ 7 ] Unfortunately, the mother has been inconsistent in sending the child to daycare. The child's behaviour, although improving, remained challenging. On one occasion, the child scratched a teacher during an outburst. As a consequence, the daycare could no longer provide services to the child. [ 8 ] On December 8 th , 2015, the child began attending [School A] in the prekindergarten program.

The child is also receiving services from Miriam Home , affiliated with the Centre de Réadaptation en Déficience Intellectuelle et en Troubles Envahissants du Développement (CRDITED). [ 9 ] The child is also followed at the clinic of Dr. Julien. [ 10 ] Due to the concerted efforts of the mother and of the service providers, the situation of the child has improved. The child no longer uses inappropriate language when upset. The child's vocabulary has improved.

The mother has learned strategies and techniques in order to set appropriate limits to the child. [ 11 ] In August 2015, the mother and the child moved to an apartment of their own. Contrary to the court order, the mother allowed the father to have contacts with the child. In late October 2015, the educator came to the home of the mother only to find the child in the care of a babysitter refusing to identify himself. At first, the mother claimed that the babysitter was the uncle of the child.

The following day, the mother admitted that the so-called uncle was indeed the father of the child. [ 12 ] On December 14 th , 2015, the mother was physically assaulted by the father, just outside of her apartment. The mother had to be brought to the hospital to have her wound stitched up. [ 13 ] The father was subsequently arrested and the mother later withdrew her complaint as she felt the father had "learnt his lesson". [ 14 ] Despite the re-occurrence of the violence (a similar situation had occured in October 2014), despite conditions imposed on the father not to be in contact with Mrs.

A, the mother has remained ambivalent to receiving therapy for victims of conjugal violence. It is only a few weeks before Court that the mother finally accepted to receive services from the CLSC. It appears from her testimony that she now sees the benefit of such follow-up. [ 15 ] It has been impossible for the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the father as he refuses to meet with the worker.

In addition, it appears that the father said he will wait until DYP is no longer involved to resume his contacts with his daughter. [ 16 ] Questioned by the Court, the mother finally admits that the paternal grandparents may allow the father to have contacts with the child when have outings with her. The mother explains that she asks them if the child is in contact with her father but that her in-laws do not really answer her questions.

Nonetheless, she allows the paternal grandparents to leave with the child even though she says she cannot trust them. [ 17 ] The intervention of the Director was ordered in order to address the conjugal violence the child was exposed to as well as the neglect. [ 18 ] It appears from the evidence that at least one incident of conjugal violence occurred, in October 2015.

It has been difficult for the mother to respect the court order and to be honest with the Director. [ 19 ] From now on, the Director will have to ensure that contacts of the child with extended family members (paternal grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins) are set in such a way to protect the child. [ 20 ] It is hoped that the father will collaborate with the Director and establish, once and for all, his commitment and motivation to be involved in the life of the child.

It is hoped that the father will manifest himself so that the Director can determine the modalities of regular contacts that the child should have with her father. [ 21 ] In order to meet all the needs of the child, the Court urges the Director to follow-up closely on the psychiatric assessment recommended in November 2015. [ 22 ] The Director has established the need for the court order to be revised and extended. The measures recommended meet the needs of the child and are in her best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her mother, at the exclusion of Mr.

B; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the modalities of contacts between the child and her father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and SETS the minimum frequency of these contacts at once (1) every two (2) weeks, provided that the father makes himself available to the Director of Youth Protection and establishes his commitment and motivation to maintain regular contacts with his daughter; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the modalities of contacts between the child and extended family members be determined by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS to the parents to seek professional help they may need individually or as a couple to address issues of conjugal violence; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child receive the following health care and services: a regular medical follow-up (she is currently receiving services from Dr. Julien) and a psychiatric assessment; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child receive all the services that she needs; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the child attend school or daycare on a regular basis; [ 32 ] WITHDRAWS from Mr.

B the exercise of parental authority in regards to obtaining a passport or providing travel authorization and therefore, the mother will be the only one exercising parental authority in this regard; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Robert Hamel Attorney for the child Me François De Vette Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : July 14 th , 2016