2019 QCCQ 18139, 2019 QCCQ 18139

Protection de la jeunesse — 197536 2019 QCCQ 18139 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 565-41-000298-188 DATE: July 19, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Petitioner and X Child and A B In their capacity as 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 Director of Youth Protection is seeking the revision and extension of the decision rendered on November 26 th , 2018 in relation to X, soon to be 2 years old. [ 2 ] On that day, the undersigned ruled that the security and development of the child remained endangered given the mother’s fragile mental health.

The undersigned ordered that the child be entrusted to her father for a period of six months and that mother-child contacts be determined by agreement between the social practitioner and the mother; in the absence of agreement, contacts were to occur at a minimum three times per week, supervised on a continuous or discontinuous basis. [ 3 ] The Director is asking the Court to maintain the child with her father for another six months and to review the contact modalities given the mother’s deteriorating mental health and instable behavior.

More specifically, the Director recommends that the contacts be supervised and, unless otherwise agreed, that they occur once a week on the condition that the mother’s emotional and mental state are conducive to a positive visit for the child. [ 4 ] The mother is present and not represented by counsel. She denies the facts alleged in support of the motion and disagrees with the proposed measures. She has not read the report prepared by the social practitioner and has no wish to do so, being convinced that it is full of lies. [ 5 ] The father is present and represented by counsel.

He admits to all the facts and is in agreement with the proposed measures. He is concerned for the child’s safety when she is with the mother and insists that the visits be supervised at all times. The child’s counsel is acting under a legal mandate and is of the view that the proposed revision of the contact modalities are in the child’s best interest. [ 6 ] The mother’s emotional and mental state is indeed unstable, as evidenced by recent events and her behaviour at Court. She can be difficult to work with given that she argues a lot and has difficulty keeping her temper in check. This has led to run-ins with

authorities and difficulties in maintaining good relationships within her community. As a result of her difficult and erratic behaviour, several of the services she was receiving have now been suspended. [ 7 ] The mother clearly loves her daughter, has good parental skills and the ability to have meaningful and positive visits with her child and accompany her to activities (e.g., swimming lessons). However, the evidence reveals that when she is upset and loses her composure, she no longer pays attention to the child.

Both social practitioners involved with the child’s situation have witnessed incidents where the mother was out of control in the presence of the child, putting the child at risk. The child is by no means oblivious to the situation, and reacts to her mother’s yelling and crying. [ 8 ] Unfortunately, the mother does not acknowledge her condition, the risk this creates or the impact this can have on her daughter. She sees no reason why the child cannot be returned under her care, insists that she needs this relationship and wants to be a mom.

The mother is on the defensive and remains essentially focussed on finding the fault in others, including the father and those seeking to help. Of added concern, she is also making repeated allegations regarding the daycare (child abuse) and the father (paedophilia), neither of which is supported by the evidence. [ 9 ] The child is doing well under her father’s care. The father has a good rapport with the child and offers excellent collaboration.

He has an understanding with the daycare whereby the child can stay there for the night in the event that he has to remain out of town because of work, which happens once or twice a month. [ 10 ] The parents don’t get along and they are not in contact. The father says he holds no grudge against the mother, although he fears for his daughter’s safety.

His testimony is credible and there is no reason to doubt the seriousness of his concerns or the fact that he wants what’s best for his daughter. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances and in view of the evidence, it is clearly in the interest of the child to remain entrusted to her father for the time being. As to the mother-child visits, the contact modalities ordered in November 2018 must be reviewed given the mother’s current emotional and mental instability. [ 12 ] For the time being, the mother’s condition requires that visits be supervised.

The proposed minimum of one visit per week is appropriate given new developments. If the mother is doing well, visits can and should take place more often and for longer periods of time, allowing mother and child to spend more quality time together.

However, if the mother is too angry, distressed or otherwise unable to have a positive visit with her daughter, then the visit should be cancelled or shortened, as the case may be. [ 13 ] That being said, one should not confuse the mother’s difficulty in maintaining services or getting along with authorities in her community with her ability to have a positive visit with her daughter. One does not necessarily equate to the other.

In other words, the cancellation of a mother-child visit should not be a sanction for the mother’s unrelated behavior in other settings, but rather be based on whether she is well enough to have a positive visit with her daughter (from the child’s perspective) on any given day. This is something which the social practitioner can and should assess first hand. [ 14 ] While she may not yet recognize it, the mother needs help. She has good parental skills and she is able to play an active and positive role in her daughter’s life, provided she can stabilize her condition.

It is hoped that she will realize the urgency of the situation and that she will seek help and follow the recommendations of professionals. If her situation improves, contact modalities can be revised and, in time, supervision may be lifted. [ 15 ] THEREFORE THE COURT : [ 16 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child remain endangered; [ 18 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the decision rendered on November 26 th , 2018; [ 19 ] ORDERS the implementation of the following protection measures for a period of six months:

a) That the child be entrusted to her father;

b) That the contacts between mother and child take place in accordance with the following modalities: i. The contacts are to be supervised; ii. The frequency and duration of the contacts are to be determined by agreement between the person working for the Director of Youth Protection and the mother; iii. In the absence of agreement, the contacts are to take place once per week, at a location to the determined by the person working for the Director of Youth Protection and on the condition that the mother’s emotional and mental state is conducive to a positive visit for the child; iv.

The person working for the Director of Youth Protection is authorised to cancel or put an end to a visit in the event that the mother is unable to have a positive visit with her daughter;

c) That the child receive the services necessary to develop to her full potential and to assist her in developing and consolidating a secure and stable emotional bond with her mother;

d) That a person authorised by the Director of Youth Protection provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and their parents;

[ 20 ] RECOMMENDS:

a) That the mother receive services with regard to her personal issues, including her mental health and emotional instability, and that she follow the recommendations of professionals; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. Signed on July 19, 2019 __________________________________ JEAN-FRANÇOIS NOËL, J.Q.C. Mtre. Sandra Couture Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Isabelle Saumier-Castonguay Counsel for the child Mrs. A Mother - Representing herself Mtre. Louis-André Hubert Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: June 18 th , 2019; July 10 th , 2019.