2015 QCCQ 12787, 2015 QCCQ 12787

Protection de la jeunesse — 152623 2015 QCCQ 12787 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004766-146 DATE: February 9, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : [...] , 2009 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection regarding X , born on [...] , 2009, alleging that his security and development are in danger in reason of health and educational neglect as well as psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] The Director seeks the establishment of protective measures for 6 months, more notably that the Court entrust the child to a third party, namely Ms C , as well as provide for access with his parents following mutual agreement. [ 3 ] The parents consign their admissions to the Court file.

The mother agrees to the conclusions sought. Through his attorney, the father indicates not contesting the motion in respect to the mother’s position. [ 4 ] Operating under a legal mandate, the attorney for the child declares also consenting to the orientation proposed. [ 5 ] Context [ 6 ] The mother assumes the custody of X and his older brother Y . [ 7 ] Although X ’s father is allowed regular contacts in virtue of a Superior Court judgment, he only sees him sporadically.

He has limited involvement in his son’s life. [ 8 ] X is diagnosed with Dandy-walker syndrome, which engenders health issues and developmental delays. [ 9 ] From June 2011 to May 2014, the child and his family benefit from the application of protective measures in reason of a situation of endangerment based on educational and health neglect.

More precisely, the Court concludes that the mother is inconsistent as to responding to the child’s needs and shows mitigated recognition of the importance of following the recommendations of medical professionals. [ 10 ] During the order, the mother is able to remain vigilant to her son’s needs and consequently, there is no renewal of the protective measures. [ 11 ] Progressively, outside the structure of the protective measures, the mother’s implication wanes as to the follow-ups put in place.

Although the child has access to numerous professionals through the [center A] and the CLSC (social worker, occupational therapist, speech therapist, physiotherapist), the mother fails to follow through and resists services, oftentimes mentioning that she is able to take care of her son’s difficulties without aid.

She also observes that all the services and appointments can be overwhelming and contribute to her anxiety. [ 12 ] Because of the mother’s lack of commitment (missed appointments, non availability), the services offered through the CLSC and the [center A] are cancelled. [ 13 ] The Director evaluates the situation of the child anew in September 2014. [ 14 ] At that time, the child has been residing with Ms C , the mother’s cousin, for an extended period. Since X ’s infancy, she tends to X regularly at the mother’s request, sometimes for weeks at a time.

X has a positive bond with Ms C and her husband. [ 15 ] As of November 13 th , the Court provisionally entrusts X to Ms C . In this environment, he receives a coherent and constant response to his needs. [ 16 ] Since that time, the mother visits her son on a regular basis at Ms C ’s. [ 17 ] The father mentions to the caseworker wishing that his son be in his care should it not be possible to return him to his mother.

Yet, despite having to opportunity to actively participate in his son’s care, he is unavailable to accompany X to his medical appointments and only sees his son on a sporadic basis since the last Court order. [ 18 ] On the date of the hearing (December 19, 2014), the mother agrees to the orientation proposed by the Director, but seeks a postponement of the final measures as she wishes to demonstrate her ability to be fully implicated in the intervention and her son’s needs. The parties agree to this suggestion.

The Court therefore declares that the security and development of the child are in danger, renders interim measures and schedules the hearing on final measures on February 9, 2015. [ 19 ] During this period, the mother seeks services from her CLSC in regards to her anxiety. She now takes medication which helps her with emotional balance. As well, after further reflection, she recognizes not being ready to assume her son’s care, although she wishes to remain an active

part in his life. [ 20 ] Analysis and decision [ 21 ] X has significant vulnerabilities in reason of his age and personal situation, requiring that he be in an environment that is able to assume his needs on a constant basis and offer him the stimulation needed ensure that he meet his potential. [ 22 ] The mother’s anxiety issues impede her ability to understand and respond to her son’s significant needs, corresponding to a

situation of neglect requiring the application of protective measures and, more notably, his entrustment in an alternate milieu.

The parties agree that Ms C offers an appropriate environment for X . [ 23 ] The child’s interest dictates that his relationship with his mother be reinforced through regular access. [ 24 ] As well, one of the primary objectives of the intervention is to accompany the mother into receiving and maintaining psychological services, which is necessary in the process of the rehabilitation of her parental capacities. [ 25 ] As for the father, this period should also serve to clarify his involvement and verify his capacity, and will, to be a significant part of his son’s life – the first step being that he shows consistency for regular visitation. [ 26 ] After considering the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the child are in danger for the reasons brought forth by the motion.

The Court endorses the measures suggested by the Director of Youth Protection, which are the reflection of the child's best interest, while concurrently receiving the approval of the parties. [ 27 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a situation of: • health neglect (article 38(b)(1)(ii) Y.P.A.) • educational neglect (article 38(b)(1)(iii) Y.P.A.) • psychological ill-treatment (article 38(

c) Y.P.A.) [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child to Ms. C ; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the access between the child and his parents be upon agreement between the parties; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child receive certain health care and services namely, services from the [center A] and a medical follow-up; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child are in danger;; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family for 6 months; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Mr D Articling student for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 9, 2015