2017 QCCQ 20137, 2017 QCCQ 20137

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710501 2017 QCCQ 20137 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-033134-172 DATE : December 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2011 child and A mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 December 8, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that the child is at serious risk of being victim of physical abuse and that she is the subject of psychological ill-treatment. [ 3 ] On October 5, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted the child to the mother’s care and prohibited contacts between the child and her biological father, Mr. B.

The Tribunal ordered support measures to the family on a provisional basis. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that contacts between the child and Mr. B be determined by the Director, including suspension of contacts if necessary. The Director also recommends that support measures be ordered for a period of eight months. [ 5 ] On November 8 2017, a bailiff served Mr. B with a letter informing him of the Director’s request.

He is present at the hearing. [ 6 ] The mother and the child’s lawyer are in agreement with the proposed plan Questions in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? [ 8 ] Is it possible for the Tribunal to let the Director decide if a suspension of contact between the child and Mr. B is necessary? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child resides with her mother and has regular contacts with her biological father, Mr. B. The mother and Mr. B separated prior to the child’s birth. [ 10 ] Mr. B was diagnosed as having schizophrenia disorder bipolar type.

The child reported that the last time she saw Mr. B, he kept telling her that she was not a real girl and that she was a robot.

[ 11 ] The child has been witness to ongoing arguments between her mother and Mr. B. She reported that she has a secret hiding spot for when she hears them screaming. [ 12 ] The child needs to follow a strict routine at home and at school. The school suggested that the child receive a psychiatric evaluation. [ 13 ] The mother describes Mr. B as a positive father figure when he’s taking his medication. During the summer 2017, as the mother had concerns regarding Mr. B’s mental health, she did not permit that he visit with the child. She wishes to maintain some type of contacts between the child and Mr.

B and welcomes the Director’s support. [ 14 ] Mr. B admits to consuming marijuana but he does not believe that it negatively impacts on his parenting. He wishes for his contacts with the child to be reinstated. [ 15 ] Mr. B’s physician, Dr. Lipp, confirmed that Mr. B was compliant with his monthly injections, sometimes being one or two weeks late. Dr. Lipp mentioned that Mr.

B had more difficulty taking his oral medication, but that this medication was less crucial than his injections. [ 16 ] At this point, the Director’s intervention is warranted as a support to the mother’s parental authority. [ 17 ] As for the Director’s request regarding a possible suspension of contacts, the Tribunal considers that the Director is asking for a blank cheque. The Tribunal, under the Youth Protection Act (

article 91 (d)), can suspend contacts between the child and a designated person. The Tribunal cannot delegate such discretion to the Director. THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the application; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered ( sections 38 e) 2 o and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 20 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and Mr. B be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if necessary; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between the Director of Youth Protection and any professionals supporting the family; [ 22 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that Mr. B continue his psychiatric follow up and take his medication as prescribed; [ 23 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to receive therapeutic services to address her anxiety surrounding Mr.

B’s contacts with the child; [ 24 ] TAKES ACT of the mother’s agreement for the child to receive a psychiatric assessment and ORDERS that the child undergo a psychiatric assessment; [ 25 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the child continue to receive therapeutic services; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for a period of eight months; [ 28 ] 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 January 9, 2018 /cd Mtre Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Laurence Marceau Counsel for the child Date of hearing: December 8, 2017