2018 QCCQ 20696, 2018 QCCQ 20696

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811491 2018 QCCQ 20696 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-031391-162 DATE : January 18, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2001 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] In the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 19, 2016, entrusting Y to the care of her mother and X to the care of his grandmother for three months during which time a progressive reintegration to his mother’s care would take place.

The entrustment orders were subject to the exclusion of the mother’s partner C and included corrective measures such as a social follow-up. [ 2 ] The Director alleges that, although the mother has improved her methods of disciplining the children, she sporadically reverts back to the use of physical and/or verbal aggression. [ 3 ] The mother remains in a relationship with C, the father of her youngest child, and intends to have him back in the home once he is released from jail.

Considering that he remains in pre-trial detention for a number of offences, the potential length of his incarceration is difficult to estimate. [ 4 ] Consequently, the Director is asking that the children remain entrusted to the mother, to the exclusion of C, along with a social follow-up. Furthermore, the Director submits that the eventual return of Mr. C to the maternal home, in accordance with the mother’s plan, requires evaluation. To that end, the social worker asks to monitor his contacts with the children. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the allegations but denies any use of physical discipline.

She consents to the measures as proposed. [ 6 ] The father agrees with the nature of the measures but expresses concern regarding contact between the children and Mr. C. Although he initially requests a prohibition of contact between them, he revises his position at the close of the evidence and consents to the Director’s proposal. [ 7 ] The children agree with the measures as formulated by the Director. [ 8 ] The Situation [ 9 ] Since the prior judgment, the mother continues to receive support from the […] Club A and collaborates well with the social follow-up.

[ 10 ] X’s reintegration plan was implemented as expected and few issues have arisen since then. The adolescent and his mother have succeeded in establishing a routine that each considers fair.

Expectations are clear and agreed upon by both. [ 11 ] Although counselling services were offered to him, X has refused to avail himself of this opportunity thus far. [ 12 ] The mother concedes that she continues to yell at the children when they don’t listen but she denies any physical correction. [ 13 ] The children generally see their father every second weekend although X has recently reduced his time with his father as a result of a dispute. They maintain regular contact through social media. [ 14 ] Since the prior judgment, the children have maintained telephone contact with Mr.

C despite his incarceration and have visited him in jail as well. [ 15 ] The children express wanting to continue contact with Mr. C considering his presence in their lives over the past few years. The evidence indicates that this position is influenced in a large measure by their wish to please their mother rather than by an authentic desire to maintain their relationship with him. Although there is no suggestion that the mother exercises any undue influence on the children, neither do they express any sincere interest in the matter. [ 16 ] Considering the mother’s relationship with Mr.

C as well as her intent to resume living with him in the future, the social worker is of the opinion that her intervention on this subject is required. The Court agrees.

The social worker will not only provide a certain degree of monitoring regarding the contacts but will also offer the children the opportunity to freely express their preferences. [ 17 ] For these reasons, and considering the whole of the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the children continue to be endangered and that the measures proposed by the Director are in their best interest. [ 18 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 19 ] THE COURT : [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of both children continue to be endangered; [ 22 ] ENTRUSTS both children to the care of their mother to the exclusion of C; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the children and C in accordance with the frequency and modality determined by the DYP and taking into consideration the interest and desire of the children; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother refrain from using any form of physical discipline with the children; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, Y and X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE for the period of one year.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On January 25, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Edith Zavodni Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Mylène Saad Attorney for the children Me Karine Dallaire Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: January 18, 2018 KO/lf