2017 QCCQ 2989, 2017 QCCQ 2989

Protection de la jeunesse — 171032 2017 QCCQ 2989 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000703-165 DATE: January 12, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MR [SOCIAL WORKER 1], social worker, exercising his profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at […] in Town A, district A, […] Applicant -and- X, residing at […] in Town B, district A, […] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing […] in Town C in […], district A, […] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at […] in Town B in […], district A, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 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 of Youth Protection is asking this Court to review a decision rendered by Beauchemin J. on March 16, 2016, concerning X, born on […], 2015. [ 2 ] The child is absent, but represented by lawyer. The parents are both present at the hearing and also represented. [ 3 ] All parties involved acknowledge that the security and development of X are still in danger.

The dispute lies in the measures to be ordered by the Tribunal to put an end to the situation. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection is seeking the placement of the child with her father for a period of eight months along with several measures aimed at helping the child and her family. [ 5 ] The mother disagrees with this recommendation. She wants the child to be entrusted to the maternal grandfather, Mr C, where she has been living for the past 11 months. As for the father, he agrees with the recommendation, as he wishes to bring is daughter to Town E to live with him and his girlfriend.

THE FACTS [ 6 ] On March 16, 2016, Beauchemin J. declared that the security and development of the child were endangered. The reasons outlined in the judgment were the serious risk that the child’s parents would not provide for her basic needs, that she was victim of psychological ill-treatment, and that she ran a serious risk of bodily injury. [ 7 ] The parents separated in April 2015, before X’s birth. The child lived with her mother for the first nine months. During that period, the father had a conflictual relationship with the mother and he was barely involved in the child’s life.

He moved back to Town A and had irregular and sparse contacts with his daughter. [ 8 ] The mother was emotionally and physically unstable. She began a difficult relationship with Mr D in May 2015, punctuated by verbal and physical violence. The child was exposed to some of the disputes.

[ 9 ] The mother moved from Town C to Town D to live with Mr D at his mother’s house. She was thrown out of the house in January 2016 and lived for a while in a women’s shelter in Town B. At the time, she was pregnant with Mr D’s baby. The couple got back together and moved back to Town C.

She gave birth to her second child on […], 2016. [ 10 ] Since January 5, 2016, following several hearings, X has been entrusted to her maternal grandfather, Mr C. [ 11 ] In the latest decision, Beauchemin J. agreed with the following analysis of the situation contained in the Court report: The father needs to build a stable and regular relationship with his daughter in order to bond with her. There is a binding limit at the moment, which is the geographic distance between X and her parents.

As stability is a quality that can only be seen as time goes on, the parents need to focus on X’s needs and the important nature of the attachment. Both parents would benefit from parental skills support. [ 12 ] She then mentioned that “depending on the involvement of both parents with the child and, in the mother’s case, in the services she needs, the child could be returned to her mother or her father’s care, or to significant persons within her extended family”. [ 13 ] The father moved from Town A to Town E where he is living with his spouse, Mrs E and her grandmother.

The couple are both employed, they have no criminal history and do not abuse alcohol or drugs. [ 14 ] Mr B is an on-call firefighter, acted as a substitute teacher and is currently working for his spouse’s father slashing or cutting trees. Mrs E works fulltime at the Cree Health Board clinic. The father is willing to work with the social services to ensure the safety and wellbeing of his daughter. He has a good environment to offer to his daughter, has access to family support if needed and has shown stability.

He has now chosen to take his responsibilities towards his daughter. [ 15 ] The mother and her spouse started a follow-up with the Native Friendship Center to improve their parental skills and work on their relationship. Mrs F has collaborated with the Youth Protection services. She continues her involvement with the services provided by the Native Friendship Center and with the CAVAC. She has proven that she is able to take care of her children and has shown stability in her residence by continuing to live in Town C.

Her last born, Z was entrusted to her. [ 16 ] The main concern remains her relationship with Mr D. While no recent incident was reported, their relationship has been punctuated with verbal and physical violence. From August 2015 to July 2016, many violence related events occurred.

Mr D is presently involved with his follow-up to work on his difficulties. [ 17 ] The contacts between the parents and the child were sporadic and difficult to organize, distance being the main difficulty. [ 18 ] The decision of the mother to move to Town C, despite the fact that her daughter was in Town D, meant that the contacts could only occur if the foster family agreed to bring the child to Town C, or if she was able to go to Town D. This limited the contacts to twice a month.

The frequency of the contacts was increased in the last months as the mother mentioned that she saw her daughter around 10 times in November and 11 times in December. She visited her father’s home often during those two months. [ 19 ] As for the father, he had the same limitations concerning the distance. It was even more complicated for him since he had no family in Town C or in Town D to live with when visiting his daughter. According to the social report, the father had five visits with his daughter since the last judgment was rendered.

The father mentions for his part that he saw his daughter 10 times during that period. He had two periods of five consecutive days with her. In November, they went in Ottawa and in December, they brought her at their home in Town E. [ 20 ] As mentioned earlier, the mother is not requesting that her daughter be entrusted to her, but rather that she be entrusted to the grandfather, Mr C.

She mentions that during the last months, she noticed the strong bond between her father and her daughter and thinks that it would be in her best interest to stay with him, where she feels secure and at home. [ 21 ] She does not intent to go live with them, but will stay in Town C with her son and spouse. She mentioned that the placement of X with Mr F should be long-term to ensure her stability. ANALYSIS [ 22 ] Today, we are at a crossing road in X’s situation. She is 20 months old and has been in the care of her maternal grandfather for the last 11 months.

The evidence reveals that she created a very strong bond with Mr F and his spouse G. They know the child’s needs and have been great caretakers for the past months. The bond created with the child’s father is not as strong at the present time as the one she has with her foster family, mainly because of the lack of involvement during the first year of her life, and because of the great distance between their residences.

That being said, the father has a very stable and safe environment to offer to his daughter and family members to support him. [ 23 ] According to the testimony of the author of the revision report [1] , Mr [social worker 1], on a long-term basis, living with her father would be in the best interest of the child. He acknowledges that the father’s bond is not as strong as the grandfather’s, but mentions that for a child of X’s age, it is not a problem to adjust to a new situation and develop that bond. [ 24 ] In the

chapter entitled “General principles and children’s rights” of the Youth Protection Act ,

section 2.2 states: The primary responsibility for the care, maintenance and education of a child and for ensuring his supervision rests with his parents. [ 25 ] At

section 4 Y.P.A.: Every decision made under this Act must aim at keeping the child in the family environment. If, in the interest of the child, it is not possible to keep the child in the family environment, the decision must aim at ensuring that the child benefits, insofar as possible with the persons most important to the child, in particular the grandparents or other members of the

extended family, from continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age and as nearly similar to those of a normal family environment as possible. Moreover, the parents’ involvement must always be fostered, with a view to encouraging and helping them to exercise their parental responsibilities.

If, in the interest of the child, returning the child to the family is impossible, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the child’s needs and age on a permanent basis. [ 26 ] The Tribunal must, in light of these principles, determine what is in the best interest of X. [ 27 ] Both environments proposed, the father’s and the grandfather’s, have the means to meet the needs of the child and respect her rights. [ 28 ] The law clearly says that when the parents are capable of meeting the needs and care of the child, the decision of the Tribunal should aim at keeping the child in the family environment. [ 29 ] Till this day, the psychosocial and home evaluation of the father and his living environment made by Mrs H in February 2016 [2] is still relevant, as confirmed by its author to Mr [social worker 1].

This evaluation, combined with Mr [social worker 1] and the father’s testimonies, convinces the Tribunal that the father has the abilities and the means to take care of his daughter. She can develop in a safe and stable environment.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 31 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her father for a period of eight months; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the parents for the duration of the order; [ 34 ] ORDERS that regular contacts with the mother and the maternal grandparents be set, as follows: - One week with the father starting Friday December 23, 2016, followed by; - One week with C, the grandfather, with access to the mother during this week, followed by, - Two consecutive weeks with the father, followed by; - One week with the mother, with access to the grandfather C, and one week every four weeks from that time or at any other visitation calendar that would be agreed upon by both parents and the Director of Youth Protection. [ 35 ] ORDERS that the father provides the means to transport the child to Town C for the purpose of the access rights of the mother; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother pursue her personal follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 37 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother’s spouse pursue his personal follow-up as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that her daughter is not exposed to conjugal violence; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the Director of Youth Protection, at regular intervals to inform him of the current situation; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to have access to the information regarding the mother and her spouse if he agrees, regarding their presence at the appointments set by the professionals and there degree of involvement in the services offered; [ 41 ] ORDERS to any police officer to collaborate to the execution of the present Court order, if required; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q.

M e Pierre Grygiel Lawyer for the DYP M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Daoust Boulianne Parayre avocats inc. Lawyer for the child

M e Daniel Ouellette Aide juridique Lawyer for the mother M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: December 20, 2016