2013 QCCQ 14106, 2013 QCCQ 14106

Protection de la jeunesse — 134846 2013 QCCQ 14106 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-022987-101 N°: 525-41-022986-103 DATE: September 30, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on [...], 2001 - and - Y Born on [...], 2007 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of September 30, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with two motions for extension of orders rendered October 5, 2012, entrusting the children to their mother’s care with aid, counsel and assistance for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions are the following: • X continues to struggle academically, functioning at a grade two level, although she is supposed to be going into grade seven; • In April 2013, Y began weekly speech therapy at the A Centre, but he was expelled from the program in July as he had too many absences; • The mother still allows roommates with criminal records into her home and the children are exposed to them; • The mother constantly struggles to meet the needs of the children and often times falls short and requires support from the Director of Youth Protection; • The mother still exposed the children to a multitude of adults issues and for the most part still does not create appropriate boundaries; • The mother submitted herself to three random drug tests in total; the first test, in February 2013, came back positive for cannabis, but the other two were negative;

• Both parents have voiced many concerns about the other parents’ punitive style; • Both parents receive support from an educator to help with their parenting skills. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their mother’s care and that a social follow-up be provided to the family until May 1, 2014. [ 5 ] The father admits the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the measures recommended by DYP.

The father wants to have extended contacts with his children. [ 6 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the recommended measures, but considers that she does not need to participate in individual therapy as she has followed programs in the past. [ 7 ] Counsel for the children makes a general admission as to the facts alleged in the motions.

Me Bouchard considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in the children’s best interest. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [Social Worker 1], youth protection delegate, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation. The evidence reveals, that once again, Y’s file at the A Centre was closed. This time, he was expelled from the program in July 2013, because he had too many absences. Y is now undergoing a speech assessment with the speech therapist from his school, who will then decide with services will be necessary for him.

Furthermore, as the child is struggling academically it will be important for him to undergo a psycho educational assessment in order to identify any learning disabilities. As for X, she still also struggling academically. She is attending A High School and should be receiving tutoring in math and reading. [ 9 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their mother’s care with a social follow-up until May 1, 2014. DYP’s involvement with the family is still necessary, as the mother struggles to meet her children’s academic and medical needs.

Furthermore, the children need to follow a routine, including having regular contacts with their father. [ 10 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are still compromised. [ 11 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the motions: [ 13 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the children, X and Y; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the children, X and Y, be entrusted to the care of their mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the children are not exposed to any verbal or physical violence; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary by DYP; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of the contacts between the children and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, after discussion with the parties; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and Mr.

C be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if deemed necessary; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the children receive all educational and health care services required by their situation, and more particularly, in the case of Y, that he undergo a speech assessment and that the recommendations be followed and that he undergo a psycho educational assessment and that the recommendations be followed; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in individual counselling; [ 21 ] ORDERS the mother to inform the Director of Youth Protection within 48 hours of any person living in the home and RECOMMENDS that the Director meet with this person and the mother encourage this person to meet with the delegate; [ 22 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family until May 1, 2014; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 8, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Nadia Sabik Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Daniel Bouchard Counsel for the children Me Judith Shapiro Knight Counsel for the mother Me Maïa Sureau Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 30, 2013