2017 QCCQ 10329, 2017 QCCQ 10329

Protection de la jeunesse — 174388 2017 QCCQ 10329 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032408-171 DATE : May 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2003 adolescent and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) and order of interim measures ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on May 26, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that there is a serious risk that the mother may use inappropriate means of discipline and that the adolescent was subject to psychological ill treatment. [ 3 ] From August 23, 2010 to May 23, 2011, the family was followed by the Director under judicial measures. [ 4 ] From October 19, 2015 to April 2017, the family was followed under several Agreements on Voluntary Measures. [ 5 ] Today, the Director recommends that a four month interim order be put in place.

The Director recommends that the adolescent remain entrusted to the mother and that several support measures be ordered. [ 6 ] The parents and the adolescent are in agreement with the proposed plan. Question in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures done respecting the adolescent’s rights and her best interest? Context and Analysis [ 8 ] On August 23, 2010, the Honourable Gabriel De Pokomandy rendered a decision declaring that the security or development of the adolescent was compromised considering that the adolescent was exposed to the parents arguments and altercations.

The parents also used physical corrective measures on occasions. The adolescent was maintained in the parents’ care and support measures were ordered for a period of nine months. [ 9 ] On October 19, 2015, the parties signed an Agreement on Voluntary Measures, recognizing that the mother was using

inappropriate form of discipline with the adolescent. It was also agreed that the mother would not use verbal intimidation with the adolescent.

Support measures were put in place for a period of nine months. [ 10 ] In February 2016, X reported that the mother had been hitting Y and insulting the two adolescents regularly. [ 11 ] On July 7, 2016, the mother appeared overwhelmed with the situation as the adolescent was no longer respecting her rules. [ 12 ] On July 8 and 13, 2016, the parties signed a second Agreement on Voluntary Measures, recognizing that the mother was using inappropriate and insulting language when upset with the adolescent. Problems were also identified regarding the mother’s capacity to enforce rules and routine in the home.

The adolescent’s placement in a foster family home was agreed with a reintegration to begin as of August 8, 2016 if the situation allowed. Support measures were agreed until May 7 2017. [ 13 ] On August 30, 2016, the parties signed a third Agreement on Voluntary Measures to ensure that the adolescent’s placement in a foster home would be extended until October 11, 2016, with reintegration to begin as of August 2016. [ 14 ] On September 12, 2016, during a crisis in the family, the mother yelled at the adolescent, saying that she wanted to die alone and never see her girls’ face again.

Following this incident, the adolescent confirmed that things had not really changed at home. [ 15 ] On October 6, 2016, the parties signed a fourth Agreement on Voluntary Measures to extend the adolescent’s placement in a foster home until November 18, 2016. [ 16 ] On November 1 st , 2016, the parties signed a fifth Agreement on Voluntary Measures.

With these measures, the parties agreed for the extension of the adolescent’s placement in a foster family for a period of six months and supportive measures were agreed for a period of one year. [ 17 ] During the adolescent’s placement, she visited the mother and the father on a weekly basis (with the exception of the time when the mother was in Bangladesh from mid-January to March 25, 2017). [ 18 ] The father is not in a position to have the adolescent and her sibling in his care on a full time basis. [ 19 ] On April 3, 2017, the adolescent’s placement in her foster home broke down.

The adolescent left the foster home and refused to return. [ 20 ] On April 10, 2017, the Tribunal maintained the adolescent in the mother’s care and ordered support measures until the main hearing. [ 21 ] In May 2017, the maternal grandmother passed away. The mother left for Bangladesh on May 9, 2017 and returned to City A on May 24, 2017. Arrangements were made for the adolescent to be cared for by C, her older sister. [ 22 ] Despite intensive intervention through the years (from social worker and educator), the problematic situation within the family has repeated itself.

The Director presents that if the adolescent misbehave, the mother may still resort to inappropriate methods of discipline or verbal threats or insulting comments. The mother also present with ongoing challenge to provide routine and structure to the adolescent. [ 23 ] In her report, the youth protection worker provides this rationale in support of interim measures: Since the recent return home from foster care, and considering Ms.

A left shortly after, there has not been enough time to re-build the structure within the home, work on the presenting issues, stabilize the situation and provide the ideal circumstances for a successful reintegration. There has been a noticeable lack of consistency around the cleanliness of the home, school attendance and the ongoing communication with each other. Despite this, it should be noted that Ms.

A has been collaborative with the undersigned and Ms. [Social Worker 1] (the educator) as well as previous professionals involved, and remains committed to having her girls in her care while working on the issues. [ 24 ] The Tribunal is in agreement with the parties proposed plan. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the adolescent is endangered ( sections 38 e) 2 o and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 26 ] SETS the continuation of the hearing in front the undersigned on September 18, 2017 in room 1.01 for two hours; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a Bengali/English interpreter be present on the above date; [ 28 ] In the meantime: [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be arranged upon agreement by the parties; [ 31 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from inappropriate use of physical discipline or verbal intimidation with the child; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to participate in counselling services to learn effective and alternative ways of parenting; [ 33 ] ORDERS the parents to refrain from verbally denigrating each other or denigrating the child;

[ 34 ] ORDERS the child to respect her parents’ authority and follow the house rules; [ 35 ] TAKES ACT that an educator services will continue with the family; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Signed on June 19, 2017 /cd Mtre Marie-Josée Paiement Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Michel F.

Perreault Counsel for the adolescent Mtre Précilia Hijazi Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: May 26, 2017