2020 QCCQ 11125, 2020 QCCQ 11125

Protection de la jeunesse — 208478 2020 QCCQ 11125 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] COMMUNITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000475-196 DATE: December 8, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and X, born on [...], 2019 Child and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 , Youth Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection submits an application to extend a judgment rendered on October 9, 2019, by the Honourable Denyse Leduc, entrusting the child to his mother with services to be provided to the family. [ 2 ] For the hearing, only the mother is present. She is assisted by Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub. The father is absent, but was well aware of the hearing date, having received the application.

He discussed with a lawyer beforehand, but, as he is not present, the lawyer does not consider that he has a clear mandate from the client. Mtre. Yan Massé acts on behalf of the child and Mtre. Adelia Ferreira for the applicant. [ 3 ] During the weeks following the last judgment, the mother was doing well. However, she relapsed. [ 4 ] On February 28, she was met by the Social Worker and she admitted having consumed alcohol. [ 5 ] In September, information was transmitted to the Director of Youth Protection that the mother sells alcohol from her place. [ 6 ] The day after, the mother was met by Social Services.

She admitted to drinking often and occasionally using cocaine. She affirmed that she always makes arrangements for her son to be cared for by a babysitter. [ 7 ] On October 5, 2020, the father brought X to the clinic in order to be assessed by the nurse. He suspected that the child was physically abused while in the mother’s care. The nurse did notice two bruises on his neck.

Two days after, the father brought the child again to the nurse’s station for another assessment. [ 8 ] Clearly, there is no effective communication between the parents. [ 9 ] The red flag visits made at the father’s place revealed no issues at all. [ 10 ] Despite the last Court judgment, the parents did not seek help in order to solve their substance abuse problem and the situation remains basically the same. [ 11 ] When informed by the Social Worker of the recommendations proposed, the father clearly disagreed and ceased his collaboration with the Director. [ 12 ] The applicant describes the father as unpredictable.

[ 13 ] Given X’s young age, he is highly vulnerable. He needs responsible adults to take care of him and to ensure his safety. [ 14 ] The Director of Youth Protection is asking the Court to order that the parents submit to random drug testing upon request. The Court has no such jurisdiction under

section 91 of the Youth Protection Act . [1] Moreover, the father is not present and couldn’t consent to such an order. As for the mother, there was no clear consent given to this specific recommendation.

The Court is of the opinion that it is a very invasive means to monitor the situation of the parents and that there are other ways like red flag visits to ensure the safety of the child. [ 15 ] Both parents have to take the necessary steps in order to solve their problems and to develop a healthy communication. [ 16 ] The child is currently enrolled at daycare on a full-time basis, which he must continue to attend for the duration of the present judgment.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application; [ 18 ] REVIEWS AND EXTENDS the last judgment; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 21 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and his parents for a period of six months; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to be and remain sober when in presence of the child and not to put him in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the child attends daycare on a full-time basis; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, terms and degree of supervision; [ 25 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits at the parents’ homes; [ 26 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet the Social Worker upon request; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help for their substance abuse problem and that they follow the recommendations made by the professional; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection and inform the Social Worker of any changes in their situation; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents complete their parental assessments that they had agreed to ; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with any service providers working with the parents about their attendance, their collaboration and the evolution of their clients; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the father exercise his access rights to the child in a regular manner; [ 32 ] ORDERS any peace officer to collaborate with the Court orders, if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of his representatives; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Adélia Ferreira Counsel for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child Mtre. Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: December 8, 2020