2017 QCCQ 4308, 2017 QCCQ 4308

Protection de la jeunesse — 171824 2017 QCCQ 4308 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000714-162 DATE: March 29, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Child -and- MRS A, domiciled & residing at [...] in City C, district A, [...] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1) 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 Court is seized with a petition for the review of a decision rendered on August 4, 2016, concerning X, a one in a half year old toddler. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to his father for the next 12 months. [ 3 ] The father agrees with the Director’s position. The mother is presently detained.

Although she wishes to have her son with her, it is not possible for the time being. [ 4 ] The security and development of the child were declared in danger in August 2016 because of his parent’s very conflictual relationship, his exposure to their conflict and his mother’s long history of substance abuse. [ 5 ] He was entrusted to both parents at the time in a shared custody. The judge then mentioned that they had to prioritize their child’s needs and set aside their own conflict in order for the shared custody to be maintained. [ 6 ] The parents were never a couple.

During his first year, X was mostly under his mother’s care. In February 2016, the Superior Court granted custody of the child to the mother, allowing access rights to the father. Two months later, provisional measures were ordered entrusting the child to his father.

The mother was in a violent and tumultuous relationship with her boyfriend, she continued to struggle with her substance abuse problem and was aggressive and very resistant towards the services offered by the workers. [ 7 ] On October 26, 2016, the Superior Court granted full custody of the child to his father. [ 8 ] Both parents love their son and have skills to provide good care to him. They are attentive to his needs and have a good bond with him, but the child needs stability and is entitled to grow up in an environment without violence and substance abuse.

A drug free environment. [ 9 ] The mother admits her long struggle with drug consumption. She started consuming at 13 years old and now has a problem with cannabis and speed.

[ 10 ] It can explain, at least in part, her aggressive behavior and the recent accumulation of criminal files that resulted in her actual detention. During the months of October and November, there was a change in her attitude, she was working hard and seemed willing to collaborate with Mrs. [Social Worker 1], recently appointed to this file. But at the end of November, the police had to arrest her brother at her residence while the child was present and the situation degenerated.

From there, the contacts were very difficult. [ 11 ] The evidence shows that the police intervened 10 times in events related to the mother since November 2016, four times in regards to violence between her and her boyfriend. [ 12 ] She has many files pending before the Criminal Court. Amongst others, breaches of recognizance for communicating with the father while she was prohibited to do so, and committing a mischief on his car. [ 13 ] From her testimony, it is clear that she has no faith in the workers of the Director of Youth Protection.

She feels that her rights are being violated and she clearly is very reluctant to collaborate with them. [ 14 ] She is aggressive, insults and threatens the workers. The situation is difficult and will continue to be if she doesn’t accept to work with the DYP in a respectful manner. She has to remember that the ultimate goal is to protect her child and take decisions in his interest. [ 15 ] She needs to address her addiction problems. She has started to meet with Rodney St-Denis, an alcohol and drug worker in Kipawa.

She should maintain these meetings and follow any recommendations he might have to help her resolve her issues. [ 16 ] The mother also started a personal follow-up with Stacey McBride, a Front Line worker, and she meets with a worker from the Indian Friendship center in North Bay for her anger management problem. [ 17 ] These were all issues that were addressed in the last Court decision and are still very relevant.

The mother must continue the follow-ups and mobilize herself to really work on her issues and take the proper decisions to improve her personal situation. [ 18 ] The father collaborated with the workers and has complied with all their demands concerning his son’s needs. X is evolving well in the care of his father and their bond is very good. The father is sensitive to his needs and provides good care to him. [ 19 ] The personal history between the parents, and very conflictual relationship is still a problem. They must put their son’s needs first and set aside their difficulties in his interest.

For now, a third party is necessary to avoid conflicts between the parents while in the presence of the child.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X are still in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the father for the next 12 months; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the contact between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for its modalities, frequency and length, and with the presence of a third party until judge necessary; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the contact between the mother and the child resume as soon as she is released from detention, if the situation allows it; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the exchange of the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection or a person designated by them as long as necessary; [ 26 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a psychological assessment and that she authorizes the Director of Youth Protection to have a copy of the assessment; [ 27 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother seeks professional help and/or pursues the follow-ups started, to work on her personal issues as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 28 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents accept the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child is in danger; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the child is in danger; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents do not consume any drugs or alcohol in the child’s presence and that they remain sober in his presence; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the child not be in contact with C; [ 33 ] ORDERS that an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents for a period of 12 months; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the police force collaborates to the execution of the present order of necessary;

[ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ MARIE-CLAUDE BÉLANGER, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the child M e Jean-François Lacasse Lawyer for the mother M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Daoust Boulianne Parayre avocats inc. Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: February 28, 2017