2017 QCCQ 21217, 2017 QCCQ 21217

Protection de la jeunesse — 1711595 2017 QCCQ 21217 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No. 450-41-006082-169 DATE: December 19, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE SITUATION OF : X Born on [...], 2016 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS A, whose office is located at [...] Petitioner and A , residing at [...]; and B , residing at [...]; Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (Director) submits to the Court an application for revision of the decision rendered February 24 th , 2017 by justice Michel Durand in which he entrusted X to her paternal grandparents, Mrs. C and Mr. D and authorized supervised contacts between the child and her parents.

[ 2 ] Today, the Director recommends that this decision be maintained for a period of one year, and that the possibility of returning the child to her parents’ care be excluded. The Director also recommends that in case of disagreement over the modalities set for the contacts, these contacts take place once a month for two hours. [ 3 ] The parents disagree with the recommendations excluding X’s return to their care.

They also disagree that the contacts be reduced to once a month. [ 4 ] The attorney for the child agrees that the child’s return to her parents’care be excluded but believes that the contacts should be maintained, once a week. Update of the situation since February 24 th , 2017. [ 5 ] X still lives with her paternal grandparents. In their care, her development has evolved significantly. X has now integrated daycare. She is a happy child. She is very attached to her grandparents. [ 6 ] The grandparents love X and provide her with stability, routine and stimulation.

They are committed to X on a long-term basis. [ 7 ] Since February 2017, the parents have moved a few times. In one apartment, they had a conflict with the landlord. In the next apartment, it was too run down and filthy (animals in the walls), so they had to move again. Since July 2017, the parents have lived in the same apartment. They have the basic furniture. [ 8 ] The parents have changed jobs a few times as well. The mother worked as an «apprentice» at [company A] for a while but she got into a conflict with her employer. She found a new part time job at a convenience store.

Since October 2017, both parents are working in a shop ([company B]). However, today, the mother informs the Court that she is presently on leave because of some health problems. She doesn’t know if her employer will keep her. [ 9 ] From month to month, the parents have struggled with their budget because of accumulated debts concerning their rent. [ 10 ] The mother says that she no longer has anxiety attacks. She has stopped taking her medication and does not benefit from any social health services. In fact, the mother did not have a health insurance card so she could not get any follow-up or medication.

The mother says she is feeling better and does not feel any need for help anyway. The mother did not do any follow-up either with CAVAC. [ 11 ] The father has not been taking his medication for his ADHD and for his epilepsy. [ 12 ] The parents registered for the parent group «Parent’Aise» and «Nobody’s perfect» offered by the CSSS. The mother has missed a few meetings with Parent’Aise because of transportation problems. [ 13 ] The parents have visited X every Sunday afternoon at the grandparents’ home. X is happy to see her parents, but after a while, she goes back to her own occupations.

At times, the parents play with their phone or work on their car. With her grandparents around, X naturally goes towards them to get her needs met. Her parents are not the adults she refers to. [ 14 ] The parents asked the Director to transfer the visits to the DYP’s office in order to prove that they are capable of meeting X’s needs. After 3 visits at the Director’s office, the evidence reveals that the parents do well during the 3 hours visits and X remains content.

However, at the last visit, the parents forgot the visit and arrived late. [ 15 ] When any advice is given to the parents, the father tends to be more receptive than the mother who gets irritated. [ 16 ] The grandmother was not pleased with the parents’ request to move the visits to the Director’s office. She felt that decision was taken in order to meet the parents’ needs rather than X’s.

Since then, the grandparents’ collaboration in supporting the parents, such as giving them help for transportation, has declined. [ 17 ] For a long time, the parents denied having any problems and did not see why the Director needed to be in their life. Recently, the parents did acknowledge that they still have things to work on and that X is doing well at the grandparents’ home. Applicable measure [ 18 ] The parents’ situation is still unstable and fragile.

Despite some little improvements, the problems identified by Justice Durand in his previous decision have not yet been resolved. [ 19 ] Yes, the parents have been living in the same apartment for 5 months and the father has now been working for two months. But these small steps are not enough to convince the Court that X can be returned to her parents’ care in the short term. The Court observes that the mother continues to have conflicts with various people (her landlord and her employer) causing some instability which is an important problem in the parents’ life.

There is also now a bit of tension between the parents and the grandparents which is not in X’s interest. [ 20 ] X must not feel that her parents and her grandparents are in competition. They should be working together as a team. [ 21 ] On January 1 st , 2018, X will have been living with her grandparents for a year. If the return of X to her parent’s care is not foreseeable, the law prescribes that a long-term plan be determined. [ 22 ] Considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the chances that X be returned to her parents’ care on a permanent basis is improbable.

However, the Court is of the view that the parents can still play a significant role on a part time basis in X’s life. It will all depend on their acceptance or not of X’s life plan.

[ 23 ] So far, X appreciates the visits with her parents. When she spends time with them, she enjoys herself and she shows no negative reactions when she returns to her grandparents. [ 24 ] The next months shall serve to evaluate the contribution the parents will be able to make to X’s life plan. X must now understand that her home is with her grandparents for the long term. If the parents accept the decision and support the life plan, they may be able to maintain regular contacts with X who will feel no competition between her parents and grandparents for her custody.

However, if these contacts are to make her react in a negative way, they will have to be reduced. [ 25 ] For the moment, the Court believes that the visits should be maintained at once a week as they are benefiting X. The Court will also authorize that the supervision be lifted according to the evolution of the situation. The parents seem to be able to take care of X for short periods.

What remains to be seen and evaluated is what message the parents would give X during unsupervised contacts as this can have an impact on her stability, which must be protected. [ 26 ] The Director, the parents and the grandparents are now invited to clarify this permanent life plan for X, a plan with no confusion as to who are the primary caregivers. THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of X are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on February 24, 2017; ORDERS that X be entrusted to a foster family, namely the foster family of Mrs.

C and Mr. D, excluding the possibility of returning the child to her parents’ care; AUTHORIZES, in the child’s favor, supervised contacts with her parents, upon agreement with the Director of Youth Protection. In case of disagreement, the contacts will take place once a week for a period of two hours; AUTHORIZES that the supervision of the contacts between the child and her parents be lifted, if the situation allows it; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures ordered; RECOMMENDS that the mother seek professional help regarding her personal difficulties; ORDERS that a person working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family for a period of one year; ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. Signed on December 19, 2017 __________________________________ LISE GAGNON J.C.Q. Marie-Pier Trépanier Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Kim Dingman Counsel for the child Idil Abdi Counsel for the parents Date of hearing: December 1 st , 2017

Last exhibits filed: D-7