2021 QCCQ 17064, 2021 QCCQ 17064

Protection de la jeunesse — 217827 2021 QCCQ 17064 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] « Youth Division »

No: 145-41-000674-207 DATE: November 5, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on […], 2015 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on February 18, 2021, in respect of the child in order to maintain him with his father. [ 2 ] At the hearing, only the father is present, but not represented by a lawyer. He disputes one of the measures of the application. He disagrees with the contacts suggested by the DYP between mother and child.

He maintains that the mother cares little for her son and should not be able to benefit from visits. In the event that she undertakes serious follow-ups, he is ready to reconsider the mother's access rights. Regarding the child, a lawyer represents his interest. [ 3 ] After the testimony, the DYP changes their position and believes that the mother does not respect the scheduled visit and this is not in the child’s best interest. This has repercussions on the child that the father has to deal with constantly following a missed visit by the mother.

Since the last judgment ordered, she has missed more than half of the visits. Currently, these contacts are not beneficial to the child. [ 4 ] The child has expectation regarding his mother. Every time, the latter does not show up for the visits, he is deceived and it saddens him. Since September 2021, the mother did not have any contact with her child. Since then, he seems more serene. [ 5 ] The mother is still struggling with addiction issues. At the beginning of the measures ordered, she was making good progress but it rapidly decreased.

The social worker had to constantly remind her of her appointments and despite everything, she missed them. [ 6 ] She does not attend scheduled meetings, although she has access to multiple services. She does not bother with it. When asked to do a random drug test, she often does not show up. In the few ones she did, she was positive for “street drugs” obviously not prescribe by a doctor. Since the last court order, the mother did not go through any follow-up ordered or recommended by the court. [ 7 ] The child function well in his father's environment.

The father collaborates well with the DYP, despite some recent problems due to his disagreement concerning the mother’s visits. However, today the DYP rallies with his point of view. Therefore, it should bring back a better relation between them. Overall, his collaboration is positive and he is implicated with his child‘s well-being. [ 8 ] The child is doing well in school and he is described as a happy little boy. However, he has some needs. He has difficulty to express himself with his speech. The father as to make sure that the child attends his appointment regarding speech therapy to insure his development.

[ 9 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child care still in danger. Considering the evidence adduces, the application is well founded. Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP appear to be in the child’s best interest. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED VERBALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38b)2 and 38c) of the Youth protection act ; [ 12 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on February 18, 2021; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father ; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his mother be suspended except, if an agreement is reached between the parties or if a professional deems necessary for therapeutic purposes and AUTHORIZES the DYP to supervise them; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the DYP when required on the measures they applied to themselves or to their child to put an end to the situation that jeopardizes the child’s security or development; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child receives the health care and social services required by his condition, specifically speech therapy; [ 17 ] PROHIBITS the mother from consuming drugs or to be under the influence of drugs in the presence of the child; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother get involved in a follow-up in connection with her personal difficulties, particularly her addiction follow-up; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submit herself to a parental capacity assessment and to a psychological evaluation; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother submits herself to random drug tests; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until May 30, 2022; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment; [ 24 ] ORDERS to individuals covered by this order to comply. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Marie-Ève Lapointe-Lavigne for the child Mrs. A the mother (absent) Mr. B the father Date of hearing: November 3, 2021