2022 QCCQ 13891, 2022 QCCQ 13891

Protection de la jeunesse — 224786 2022 QCCQ 13891 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” No : 614-41-000475-196 DATE : May 26, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2019 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on May 26, 2022. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the Honourable Denyse Leduc on July 28, 2021. [ 3 ] On January 26, 2022, the Tribunal maintained the child entrusted to the mother at the condition that she resides with the maternal grandmother. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the mother’s care at the condition that she resides with the maternal grandmother.

The Director also recommends diverse support measures for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The father would like that the child be entrusted to him on a full time basis. He does not understand why the frequency of his contacts with his son was decreased. [ 6 ] The mother and the child’s attorney are in agreement with the Director’s plan. Questions in litigation [ 7 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his rights? [ 8 ] Should the child be entrusted to his father on a full time basis?

Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child remained entrusted to the mother’s care. [ 10 ] On August 9, 2021, the mother was asked to leave the shelter for woman as she was not properly supervising the child. The mother then moved with the child to reside with the maternal grandmother. The Tribunal is concerned that, at the time, the Director did

not seize the Court on an emergency basis. [ 11 ] On October 1 st , 2021, the father informed the Youth Protection worker that the child had been brought by ambulance to the hospital on September 29, 2021. The child would have ingested pills while in the mother’s care. [ 12 ] On November 22, 2021, the Director was informed that the mother had been drinking alcohol in the child’s presence. The child was eventually placed with family. [ 13 ] The father’s situation has remained essentially the same. He sees the child on a regular basis (twelve hours per week).

He does not understand the reasoning for the Director’s decrease of his visits. He has been followed by a psychotherapist. He plans on attending a 30 days drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in July 2022. The father confirms drinking a few beers on occasions and consuming marijuana on a recreational basis. He is not in agreement to take

part in random drug and alcohol testing. [ 14 ] During his testimony, the Director’s representative mentioned that he was open for eventually increasing the frequency of the visits between the father and the child. [ 15 ] In October 2021, the Director received the father’s Parental Capacity Assessment. The father’s forces and challenges were presented. The psychologist concluded stating that “ the father can certainly have a positive contribution to his child’s life.

However, he is unlikely to be able to take care of him alone and independently for long periods of time, especially since he is socially isolated and does not readily accept support. His difficulty to question his own behavior may also make interventions difficult and limit the possibility of change .” [1] [ 16 ] The mother refused to take

part in the Parental Capacity Assessment. [ 17 ] The parent’s collaboration with the Director has been difficult. In the past six months, the mother only met with the Youth Protection worker once. As it was difficult to arrange a calendar of visit, the parents eventually did the visits on their own terms. [ 18 ] The child did not attend daycare. [ 19 ] The parents have yet to take formal steps to address their issues with drugs and alcohol.

At times, their communication remains conflictual. [ 20 ] Considering the longstanding issues of the parents, the Director’s intervention remains necessary. [ 21 ] The father’s wish to care for his child on a full time basis is not supported by the evidence and by his Parental Capacity Assessment.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application for revision; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 24 ] REVISES the order rendered on July 28, 2021 by the Honourable Denyse Leduc; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother on the condition that she remain living in the home of the maternal grandmother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection with supervision of a third party if deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a calendar of visits be organized as soon as possible; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the mother ensure that the child attend daycare on a full-time basis; [ 29 ] RECOMMEND S that both parents complete a drug and alcohol treatment program and maintain their sobriety; [ 30 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father intend to take

part in a 30 day drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in July 2022; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother undergo random drug testing upon the request of the worker; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to any forms of violence and/or any verbal aggression; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and not under the influence of any mood-altering substances in the presence of the child at all times; [ 34 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate actively with the Youth Protection worker and to see the worker upon request; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the mother advise the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address or phone numbers; [ 36 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all services providers working with the child and the family with regards to progress and attendance;

[ 37 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of Board of Health and Social Services A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Written and signed on July 5, 2022 /cd Mtre Adélia Ferreira Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Yan Massé Counsel for the child Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother Mtre Justine Bergeron Counsel for the father Date of hearing: May 26, 2022