2021 QCCQ 1464, 2021 QCCQ 1464

Protection de la jeunesse — 21490 2021 QCCQ 1464 JN0409 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] «Youth Division» N° : 505-41-009789-191 DATE : January 15, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE THIERRY NADON, Q.C.J. [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant -and- X , born on [...], 2016 Child -and- A, Mother -and- B , Father J U D G E M E N T

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) applies for an extension and revision of a Court order issued on August 18, 2020. [ 2 ] The DYP alleges that the security and development of the child are still in danger.

It asks that the order be revised and extended for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The parties agree with the Application and its conclusions.

[ 4 ] At the hearing, the mother was absent but represented by counsel. The Court learned that she had been arrested because she had failed to show up in Court in another file. The parties are of the opinion that she would be released under her own undertaking. Because of the impending release, they expect this to have no impact on the situation of the child. [ 5 ] The Director produced reports as evidence. The Situation of the Child [ 6 ] The child is doing well. He lives with his mother and spends every weekend with his father. He has a strong bond with his mother.

The mother tries to spend quality time with him. Since the last court order, the mother has collaborated and has sought help for her mental health issues. [ 7 ] When the child returns to his mother’s from his weekends at his father’s residence, he has emotional difficulties. It is noted that the father refuses that the child speaks of certain persons while he is with him. At the hearing, the father denied it. That said, the child seems to have a good time with his father and loves him very much. [ 8 ] The conflicts between the parents are still very much present.

The father still has a tendency to invent facts in order to « catch » the mother. He still calls the mother and grandmother bad names. He is still aggressive with social workers, the mother or anybody involved in the situation when things don’t go his way. He still denigrates the mother to the social workers. He even implied that the mother and her boyfriend were beating the child, which was not the case. He becomes angry and very hostile quickly.

That said, he resumed his Anger Management therapy. [ 9 ] Since the last Court order, the father made the transportation of the child issue difficult and required a lot from the mother. This seems to have improved. [ 10 ] At the hearing, the father denied most of these allegations and maintained that the situation is settled. He claimed that he wished to move on from the conflicts in order for his son to live a healthy life.

Because of the troubled past, the extent of the problems and the allegations put forward, the Court remains cautiously optimistic. [ 11 ] As the expression goes, the ball is in the court of the parents to resolve the issues in order for their child to live a healthy life free of their conflicts. [ 12 ] After considering the whole of the evidence, the Court concludes that a revision and extension of the order are required.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the present application; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; [ 15 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on August 18, 2020, in the present file; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be following an agreement between the parties and in the absence of agreement that they take place each Friday, the father picking up the child at the daycare, at 6:00PM, and returning him to his mother at Tim Hortons located at [...] in City A, on Sunday at 7:00PM; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the paternal uncles, Mr.

C and Mr. D, are not present during the father’s contacts; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child refrain from denigrating directly and indirectly each other in the presence of the child; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered, more specifically that they participate in a parenting program and follow all recommendations; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and his family; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment to intervene herein; [ 24 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six (6) months. Signed on February 3, 2021

________________________________ Thierry Nadon, J.C.Q. Mtre Mélissa Labine Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Kathleen O’meara / Élise Coulombe ( Articling Student ) Attorney for the Child Mtre Nancy Côté Attorney for the mother Mtre Lucie Gaucher Attorney for the father Date of the hearing : January 15, 2021