2012 QCCQ 11157, 2012 QCCQ 11157

Protection de la jeunesse — 123679 2012 QCCQ 11157 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY [ … ] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-003840-108 760-41-003841-106 DATE: March 2, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born [ … ] , 2006 Y , born [ … ] , 2010 DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF CENTRE DE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents of the children ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] On January 5, 2011, Justice Linda Despots of the Court of Québec, Youth Division, declared compromised the security and the development of X and Y, and ordered that they be entrusted to their maternal grandmother with other measures of aid, counsel and assistance for 1 year. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions for extension of the said decision, for the reasons detailed in the respective paragraphs 4.

The status quo of the measures is requested, although the Director asks that the Court take act of their intention to promptly seek a prohibition of contact between the children and their father, once they are able to serve him. [ 3 ] The father, although duly served of the motion, is absent and the Court proceeds in the best interests of the children.

The admissions of the parties as to the motion are noted in the Court record and they indicate their assent as to the measures proposed. [ 4 ] Since the last Court order, the children remain with their maternal grandmother and their mother, who also resides in the same household. They are evolving positively in this milieu and receive response to their needs.

Notwithstanding, it is noted that the relationship between the maternal grandmother and the mother is sometimes strained in regard to the interventions with the children. [ 5 ] The mother maintains her sobriety and continues to receive external counselling from the center B. She fully participates and collaborates in the intervention concerning her children.

As a further logical progression in her personal situation, she intends to move into her own apartment as of April 1 st 2012. [ 6 ] The mother recognizes that her relationship with her sons remains a challenge and still requires structuring, particularly as to her response to their oppositional behaviours.

She accepts that the children must remain in their present environment, allowing her to concentrate on acquiring her autonomy and further stabilizing her situation. [ 7 ] The parties agree that the contacts between the mother and her children as of April 1 st will be determined by mutual agreement, with the intent that these progress towards independent visits at her new home.

The ultimate goal of the intervention remains an integration of the children in their maternal environment. [ 8 ] After an absence of almost one year, the father sees his children on two occasions since the last judgment, namely on April 14 th and May 12 th 2011. The father manifests a desire to see his children, but the results testify that he is unable or unwilling to be consistently available.

When confronted about this situation by the Petitioner, he explains that he has had to concentrate on other personal issues. [ 9 ] The law provides that the Court must consider the passage of time from the children's standpoint. The father's relative absence in the last two years result that he is not a significant person in his children's lives. For Y this is particularly true, as his father has not been present for the larger part of his lifespan.

The evidence also shows that X demonstrates oppositional behaviors after the visits and when scheduled visits were cancelled. [ 10 ] The Court determines that the security and the development of the children are still compromised and that the majority of the measures requested by the Petitioner are in their best interests. Remains the issue of the father's contacts. [ 11 ] At this crucial juncture, 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. [ 12 ] The evidence establishes that no agreement will be forthcoming as to the father's eventual contacts, as the Petitioner considers that a prohibition is now necessary.

Consequently, it is misleading to render such an order. [ 13 ] Considering the preceding, the lack of information as to the father's present situation and motivation, the Court orders the suspension of his contacts. [ 14 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the maternal grandmother C; [ 18 ] TAKES ACT that the mother will be living with her parents and her children until April 1, 2012; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the children after April 1, 2012, be determined following mutual agreement between the mother and C; [ 20 ] SUSPENDS the contacts between the children and their father; [ 21 ] TAKES ACT that the father may petition the Court should he wish to re-establish contacts with his children; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents of the children take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the children and their parents for a period of one (1) year;

[ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the youth protection director of centre de jeunesse A for the execution of the measures; __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Director Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the children Date of hearing: March 2, 2012