2018 QCCQ 15723, 2018 QCCQ 15723

Protection de la jeunesse — 186632 2018 QCCQ 15723 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-005194-165 DATE: May 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X, born [...], 2015 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION A Applicant v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On November 30, 2017, the Court extends protective measures applied in regards to the siblings X and Y in relation to a situation of physical and educational neglect.

Amid various other measures of aid and counsel, the children remain in the care of extended family members with supervised access to their parents. [ 2 ] Alleging that the parents continue to demonstrate personal difficulties on many levels, the Director of Youth Protection seeks the extension and revision of the measures for an additional period of nine months. [ 3 ] Both parents subscribe to the Director’s evaluation and orientation, as does the child’s attorney, acting under a legal mandate. [ 4 ] Analysis and decision [ 5 ] Since the last order, X resides with her maternal aunt, Ms. B.

Her younger sibling also resides in this environment. Overall, she is evolving positively and receives response to her needs. [ 6 ] A strong bond exists between X and her substitute environment. [ 7 ] Concerns remain ongoing in regards to the maternal aunt’s stability and this, in regard to her transparency and her response to the increasing challenges of having the care of three young children. [ 8 ] A new conjugal relationship appears to be a supporting factor.

The couple is expecting a child for [...] 2018. [ 9 ] X sees her mother on a regular basis following an established calendar, usually under the supervision of the maternal aunt. [ 10 ] The mother is able to respond to her daughter’s needs autonomously and they have a good relationship. She applies the teachings of the educator in regards to stimulation. The parties eventually agree that supervision be partial, permitting them to have quality time together. [ 11 ] X also sees Mr. C, recognized as her biological father. He has a history of inconsistency as to his implication towards his son Y and X.

Between November 2017 and January 2018, he is unreachable. Since the beginning of the year, he is available for contacts and the intervention, seeing the children once every three weeks under the supervision of the Director. [ 12 ] Mr. C still requires support in decoding the children’s needs and establishing a secure bond with them. [ 13 ] Both the mother and Mr. C continue to present significant personal difficulties.

Although they remain well-intended, they continue to make choices which hinder their stability and the consequent rehabilitation of their parental capacities. [ 14 ] Their relationship remains nebulous, with periods of separation and reconciliation.

[ 15 ] In November 2018, the mother assaults Mr. C’s girlfriend in the presence of the children, resulting in a police intervention. Subsequently, she takes the initiative of starting a follow-up with Via l’Anse in regards to her impulsiveness and anger control. [ 16 ] The mother receives various services. She integrates a new apartment with the objective of gradually progressing her contacts to this environment and eventually lifting the supervision.

The parents renew their conjugal relationship for a short time, recently deciding to separate, stating their intentions on focusing on their children. [ 17 ] The mother continues to work towards the return of her children to her care and demonstrates some improvements over the last months in regards to her collaboration and consistency with the services in place. Notwithstanding, her questionable judgment within her relationship choices are still an impediment to her stability on many levels.

As well, she struggles to manage an organized and autonomous lifestyle. [ 18 ] Overall, there are little durable changes as to the parental situation. [ 19 ] For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child remains in danger in reason of neglect. [ 20 ] As to the protective measures, the parties agree to the extension of the measures for nine months and this, despite the fact that the maximum delays of placement are now attained.

Considering the mother’s efforts to stabilize her personal situation and the need to verify if the alternate life plan is viable on a long term basis, the Court endorses the orientation in the child’s best interests. [ 21 ] Consequently, the objective remains X’s reintegration with her mother and strides are made in this regard, although durable change remains elusive. As such, the Court refers to the following passage of the last judgment, which still reflects the situation of the child: [24] The next period is crucial for the children.

Not only are the maximum delays of placement to be considered, the evidence demonstrates that they are settling in their substitute environments. It will be the time to verify to which extent the parents are able to ensure a stable environment and rehabilitate their parental abilities in view of fully assuming their roles. It is a long way to go in a short time. [ 22 ] Rehabilitation of the parental environment is tantamount and the mother must privilege this objective in the child’s best interests.

If such is not the case, the Court will be bound to consider stabilizing the child on a long-term basis and this, in respect of this best interests as defined by the Youth Protection Act . [ 23 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 26 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on November 30, 2017; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child X be entrusted to her maternal aunt, Mrs.

B; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and her mother be following mutual agreement between the parties, in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and Mr.

C be following agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES partial or total lifting of the supervision of the contacts between the child and her mother following agreement between the mother and the Director of Youth Protection; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she applies in her own regard or the child’s regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family; [ 34 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 9 months; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Sarah Gaudry Staub Attorney for the Applicant Me Michel Robert Attorney for the mother

Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: May 17, 2018