2017 QCCQ 6889, 2017 QCCQ 6889

Protection de la jeunesse — 173102 2017 QCCQ 6889 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 31852-163 Date: April 27, 2017 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) 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 ] JD2620 The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of April 27, 2017, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a Motion to declare that the security or development of a child is in danger in the case of X , a two year-old child, based on the neglect and serious risk of neglect to which he is exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated November 14, 2016 are as follows: 3.1. the father has been uninvolved in the child’s life, for the most part, but does see him very sporadically; 3.2. there is a serious risk that the mother is not providing for the child’s basic needs, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) for the past two (2) years, the mother has lived a very transient lifestyle;

b) the mother has been prostituting herself;

c) this past summer, the mother was raped, and has since expressed that she is no longer engaging in prostitution;

d) the mother has left the child with random people, friends, and the maternal grandmother, for weeks and months at a time;

e) in August 2016, the mother left the child with the maternal grandmother for what was supposed to be a month’s time, while she was out prostituting herself in [province A];

f) during her absence in August, the mother did not leave the child with sufficient clothing;

g) the child has been exhibiting aggressive behaviours, and does not speak yet;

h) the child does not attend a daycare;

i) concerns exist that the mother consumes drugs;

3.3. since mid-October 2016, the mother has avoided the youth protection worker, and has not responded to any of her letters and calls; 3.4. on November 2016, the maternal grandfather informed the youth protection worker that the mother and child have been staying with the mother’s boyfriend; 3.5. concerns exist that the mother’s boyfriend consumes drugs; 3.6. on November 11, 2016, the child was placed in the care of the maternal grandfather (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to his maternal grandfather with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The mother was not present at the hearing.

She was represented by Me Shapiro Knight who admitted the majority of the facts alleged and expressed her consent to all the proposed measures.

She also added that the mother would like unsupervised overnight visits with the child. [ 6 ] The father was also absent at the hearing and represented by Me Brunet who expressed his consent to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me Benoit, on behalf of the child, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-4 as evidence: D-1: Birth certificate; D-2: Court report, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated December 22, 2016; D-3: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated February 13, 2017; D-4: Addendum II, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated April 14, 2017. [ 9 ] In

summary, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that the parents are incapable of meeting their child’s needs on a daily basis. [ 10 ] Moreover, although the father appears to have made certain gains, he is not as present or consistent in his contacts with the child as could be hoped, especially considering the extent of the grandfather’s willingness to facilitate contacts by ensuring all the transportation to and from the visits. [ 11 ] The father generally sees the child every second weekend.

The contacts are reportedly positive and the child would like to see his father more frequently. [ 12 ] The grandfather has also offered to welcome the mother into his home for extended periods of time. To date, she has not availed herself of the opportunity to spend additional time with her son. [ 13 ] Although she requests more frequent contacts with her child, she does not appear prepared to take the steps necessary to be more present.

Regarding the overnight visits requested by the mother, they cannot be allowed so long as reasonable concerns exist regarding drug-dealing from her apartment. [ 14 ] As for the child, he has made significant progress in his grandfather’s care. As a result, the grandfather, who was initially ambivalent about the length of the entrustment, no longer expresses the same reservations about caring for the child for an extended period of time. [ 15 ] Both parents are strongly encouraged to be as consistent as possible in their contacts with the child and to act quickly to resume the care of their son.

More particularly, both are encouraged to benefit from a substance abuse assessment and to follow any recommendations that may be made. [ 16 ] Finally, the worker testified that he can always readily reach the father whereas it is impossible for him to communicate with the mother in a timely manner. [ 17 ] Under the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well-founded and that the measures are in the child's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child, X , are in danger under sections 38 (b) (1) (iii) and 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of his maternal grandfather, Mr. C, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that Mr. C is being assessed to become a foster family;

[ 21 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by consent between the parties, including the Director of Youth Protection and, in the absence of an agreement, that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and each of his parents be encouraged, as much as possible, insofar as contacts occur regularly and consistently; [ 23 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that contacts between the child and his mother generally occur for three hours on Saturdays without supervision and that contacts between the child and his father occur every second weekend from Saturday afternoon until Sunday afternoon without supervision; [ 24 ] ORDERS that contacts with both parents continue minimally at the same frequency, and in the mother’s case, provided that she confirms her presence twenty-four hours in advance, and provided that no contacts occur in her home without the Director of Youth Protection’s prior approval; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents be as consistent and predictable as possible in their contacts with the child; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the family receive the services of an educator for long as necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain for using any drugs or alcohol in the presence of their son; [ 28 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority regarding authorizations required for health care services for the child and confers the exercise of such parental authority exclusively to the father; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child receive any health care services required by his condition, including speech therapy if necessary TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that a referral for such services has been made; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother benefit from therapeutic services to address her past history of trauma; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents undergo a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations that may be made; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to share and obtain relevant information regarding participation and attendance with the family’s treating professionals; [ 33 ] ORDERS that a person working for [Centre A] provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the execution of the present order by any peace officer, if necessary; [ 36 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Myriam De Blois Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Christian Benoit Attorney for the child Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the mother Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the father Hearing dates: February 21 and April 27, 2017. TD/vl