2023 QCCQ 7166, 2023 QCCQ 7166

Protection de la jeunesse — 233777 2023 QCCQ 7166 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-038945-218 525-41-038946-216 DATE: July 26 th , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION CIUSSS A Applicant -and- X Born on [...], 2009 -and- Y Born on [...], 2009 -and- A Mother -and- B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT IN REVISION AND EXTENSION [1] (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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] X and Y are twin brothers. They are now fourteen (14) years old. They have been living with their brother C since September 2021. [ 2 ] The Director is asking that the adolescents remain entrusted to their brother until their age of majority along with other protective measures. [ 3 ] The mother and the adolescents agree with the measures recommended by the Director.

For the time being, the boys do not wish to have contacts with their father. [ 4 ] It is since March 2023, or so, that the Director has been in contact with the father. Mr. B agrees with the involvement of the Director but wishes to share custody of his sons with C. He minimally wishes to re-establish contacts with his sons. QUESTION AT STAKE [ 5 ] Considering the recent involvement of the father with the Director of youth protection, is it in the best interest of the adolescents that the Court render a decision entrusting them to their brother C and their father? ANALYSIS

[ 6 ] After considering all of the evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that the adolescents should be entrusted to the foster family of their brother C until their age of majority along with other protective measures. The Court comes to these conclusions for the following reasons. [ 7 ] The evidence reveals that the situation of the mother remains essentially the same. She keeps regular contacts with her sons under the general supervision of her older son C. [ 8 ] The mother claims her mental health condition is under control, and she agrees to consult with health professionals if need be.

It is understood that the mother does not fully acknowledge her condition, but she collaborates with the Director and her sons’ needs are fully met by their brother C. [ 9 ] As mentioned, the needs of the adolescents are appropriately met. They continue to attend school and have good results. They have various activities and are well supported by their brother. [ 10 ] The wish of the adolescents is clearly expressed in that they wish to continue to live with their brother. [ 11 ] It is in February or March 2023 that the social worker initiated contact with the father of the adolescents.

The father has given to the social worker, as he did to the undersigned, numerous reasons why he has not been involved with his sons for the past six (6) or seven (7) years. Their last contact would have occurred then, approximately six (6) years ago. [ 12 ] The father easily blames the Director for not having found him when the last decision was rendered. He is quick to claim that nobody hears what he has to say.

The reality remains: even before the Director was involved, the father had chosen to distance himself from his sons. [ 13 ] Now that he is present and that the Director knows how to reach him, the father requests to be given “shared custody” of his sons.

He would like arrangements to be made for the adolescents to continue to live with their brother C but to visit and possibly partly live with him. [ 14 ] X and Y have clearly express that for now, they do not wish to have contacts with their father. [ 15 ] It appears from the evidence that conflicts do exist opposing not only the parents but, in all likelihood, the father to C.

It is important for the Director to clearly establish the limits of the responsibilities given to C and the channel of communications to be used: if the parents have questions regarding the involvement of the Director and the situation of their sons, they should direct their questions to the social worker. [ 16 ] Prior to possibly re-establish contacts between the adolescents (or one of them) and the father, clinical work must be done to ensure that the adolescents are well prepared as well as to ensure that the father is in a position to meet the individual needs of the adolescents regarding contacts.

It is not sufficient for the father to say that he wishes to have contacts: he has to understand that his sons may have suffered from his absence and that they may not, for that reason and others, wish to re-establish contacts. [ 17 ] The father is also opposed to the exercise of the attributes of his parental authority to be withdrawn from him and granted to C. [ 18 ] Even if the father is not reachable and willing to assume his responsibilities, the evidence reveals that the father is not in a position to make any kind of decisions concerning his sons as he has been estranged from them for more than six (6) years.

Under these circumstances, it is C who is in the best position to exercise the attributes of parental authority normally assumed by the parents. [ 19 ] The Director has established that the security and development of the adolescents remain endangered. The recommendations made by the Director meet the needs of the adolescents and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE, AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescents are still endangered due to physical abuse, psychological ill- treatment, neglect and risk of neglect; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS both adolescents to the care of the foster family of their brother, Mr.

C; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency, modality and duration of contacts between the adolescents and their mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if need be, taking into account the adolescents’ wishes and the mother’s availabilities; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the frequency, modality and duration of contacts between the adolescents and their father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision if need be, taking into account the adolescents’ wishes and the father’s availabilities; [ 24 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate with the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 25 ] WITHDRAWS from both parents all of the attributes of parental authority except surveillance; [ 26 ] GRANTS the exercise of these attributes of parental authority to Mr.

C; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive psychiatric services and that she follows through with the recommendations made by the treating professionals, including taking medications as prescribed;

[ 28 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Center provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescents and their family; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescents X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out; THE WHOLE until the adolescents’ age of majority. Signed on July 28 th , 2023 __________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. Me Hanane Louimi For the Director of Youth Protection Me Desneiges Slavin For the adolescents Date of hearing: July 26 th , 2023 MA/ss [1] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on July 26 th , 2023.