2018 QCCQ 15627, 2018 QCCQ 15627

Protection de la jeunesse — 186664 2018 QCCQ 15627 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 760-41-005536-175 DATE: May 1, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: […], 2006 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Applicant v.

A 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 ] Alleging neglect on an educational level, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the application of various protective measures in regards to the child X. [ 2 ] Both the child and her mother subscribe to the Director’s evaluation and recommended orientation.

As for the father, he remits himself to the Court as to the appreciation of the child’s situation. [ 3 ] Analysis and decision [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection intervenes in the child’s situation after receiving a complaint of neglect. [ 5 ] X resides with her father, his partner and her two older siblings. She sees her mother every second weekend, following an agreement between the parents. It is pertinent to note that the mother detains custody in virtue of a Superior Court judgment. [ 6 ] These access periods occur in the absence of the mother’s partner, Mr.

C, who has criminal conditions prohibiting his being in contact with children in reason of a conviction for sexual abuse on a minor. [ 7 ] The Director’s evaluation reveals ongoing difficulties in the child’s family environment, namely: • A recurrent lice problem; • Lack of supervision and routine; • The father delegating his parental responsibilities to X’s siblings; • School absenteeism; [ 8 ] X is diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, a language delay and learning disabilities. She struggles in school and requires accompaniment.

School authorities observe that she often has a neglected appearance (dirty nails, small clothing) and is tired. She can mention not having had the time to eat breakfast. [ 9 ] Despite her academic challenges, X accumulates absences, usually without justification. Her parents don’t collaborate with the school authorities and fail to apply the numerous recommendations in place to promote their daughter’s academics. [ 10 ] X’s situation is well known to the Director. From 2007 to 2012, both X and her siblings under protective measures in reason of educational, physical and health plan neglect.

During that time, she was placed in an alternate environment for several months.

[ 11 ] As well, from March to November 2016, there was the application of an agreement on voluntary measures stemming from a situation of neglect on the health plan and for a serious risk of sexual abuse. [ 12 ] The parents collaborate with the evaluation and recognize the situation of neglect. The father indicates his intention to revise the situation rapidly.

As for the mother, she cites being preoccupied by her daughter’s situation, but relies on the father as custodial parent to fully address the issues. [ 13 ] In view of the evidence, the Court determines that the child is in danger in reason of educational neglect as her basic needs as to structure, supervision and education are not being fully met, which has continuing repercussions on her security and ability to develop. [ 14 ] Initially, the Director seeks that the child remain with her father and benefit from protective measures.

On March 19, 2018, the Court reschedules the hearing on the application, citing preoccupations as to the chronic difficulties in the father’s environment and questioning the viability of the orientation suggested. [ 15 ] Afterwards, the parents agree that X live with her mother as of April 1 st . The mother asks her partner to move out in reason of his restrictions for contacts with minors. They continue their relationship but ensure that X is never put in Mr. C’s presence. [ 16 ] Since residing with her mother, there is an overall positive change in X’s functioning.

She is now assiduously attending school and has improved hygiene. The mother involves herself in her daughter’s schooling and is open to receiving services. [ 17 ] X sees her father every second weekend. [ 18 ] All parties agree to the orientation now proposed, which maintains X with her mother with various measures of aid and counsel.

The Court endorses such as corresponding to the child’s best interests as well as the objectives of the law. [ 19 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of neglect on the educational level; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child remain in her maternal environment; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her father be determined following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 24 ] FORBIDS the mother to put the child in contact with Mr.

C; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS the parents to take an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE for one year; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Montérégie for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Pascale Boucher Attorney for the Applicant Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: May 1, 2018