2013 QCCQ 14507, 2013 QCCQ 14507

Protection de la jeunesse — 135130 2013 QCCQ 14507 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-003840-108 760-41-003841-106 DATE: June 4, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born [...] , 2006 Y , born [...] , 2010 Children THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE DE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a Court decision rendered on March 2, 2012 concerning the children X and Y , born respectively on [...] , 2006 and [...] , 2010. [ 2 ] The Director advances that the security and the development of the children remain in danger and requests that the Court continue to entrust them to the care of their maternal grandmother, with measures of aid and support for one year.

Furthermore, the motion proposes that the mother's contacts with the children be supervised, and that the father's contacts be forbidden. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions as to the motion in the Court record. The mother and the attorney for the children consent to the measures. The father contests the prohibition of contacts with his children.

[ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] Since the last Court order, the children remain in the care of their maternal grandmother and continue to evolve positively in her care. [ 6 ] The mother copes with ongoing personal difficulties that impede her parental capacities and her ability to manage stressful situations. Presently, she takes medication for a borderline personality disorder, combined with anxiety problems. [ 7 ] As stipulates the previous judgment, the mother resides with the grandmother until April 2012, moment at which she integrates her own apartment.

The children begin visiting their mother on a progressive basis. A childcare worker intervenes with the family with the aim of aiding the mother to assume her parental role independently. [ 8 ] The contacts progress well until the summer period, at which time the mother's cooperation with the measures wanes. She exhibits increased difficulties expressing and exercising her parental authority in an adequate manner.

When confronted by the children's oppositional behaviours, the mother can have recourse to unreasonable educational methods (yelling, slapping). [ 9 ] The mother admits being overwhelmed, and the parties agree to reduce the frequency of the visits. Subsequently, in November 2012, the parties convene that the visits occur at the grandmother's domicile and in her presence.

The parties recognize that this modality provides support for the mother in her role in an environment already structured for the children, thereby allowing the contacts to be positive and enriching. [ 10 ] The father seeks contacts with his children, affirming that he would like to see them grow up and be a part of their lives. The father affirms positive changes in his personal situation, while recognizing an ongoing instability. [ 11 ] The father's last contact with his sons is in May 2011. Since the last order, he continues to be absent from his children's lives and seeks no participation in the measures.

He is presently living with his mother. He explains that he would like to see his sons grow up and be a part of their lives. [ 12 ] The father's absence has a significant impact on X , who fails to understand why his father left. Recently, he starts seeing a psychologist to address his feelings. [ 13 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the security and the development of the children continue to be in danger and that it is appropriate that they continue to benefit from the application of protective measures.

The Director proposes measures that receive the approval of the parties, to the exception of the father's contacts. [ 14 ] The last order determines the following as to the father's contacts: 11. At this crucial junction, the Court concludes that the resurgence of the father in his son's lives would be clearly disruptive, as well as possibly detrimental to the efforts put forth to eventually stabilize them in their maternal environment.

Such a disruption may only be justified by the father demonstrating that he is prepared, able and willing to implicate himself in a consistent and long-term manner in the intervention, and the contacts. The children's interests dictate nothing less. [ 15 ] The father reflects to the Court, his inherent right to contacts with his sons. Nevertheless, said right is subservient to the children's best interests.

The father's inaction in the last two years constitutes an abandonment that overrides his affirmation of change and underscores his inability to become a significant and consistent presence in his children's lives.

The children's best interests dictating that their stability be the priority, the Court determines that the status quo be confirmed, therefore that there be no contacts with the father. [ 16 ] Notwithstanding, the father may continue to assume his parental role and responsibilities by participating actively in the follow- up. [ 17 ] Although it is possible that the parent's respective situations evolve, the evidence suggests a sombre prognosis and this, in conjunction with the period of placement, justify that the Director go forth with the elaboration of a permanency plan for the children. [ 18 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 21 ] EXTENDS the court order rendered on March 2, 2012; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to Mrs.

C ; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the contacts between the children and their mother upon an agreement between the parties an in the presence of a third party chosen by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 24 ] FORBIDS any contact between the children and their father; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children and their family for a period of one (1) year; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the children's parents report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform them of their current situation;

[ 27 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will elaborate alternative life plan for both children; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Marie La Roche Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the children Date of hearing: June 4, 2013