2020 QCCQ 5737, 2020 QCCQ 5737

Protection de la jeunesse — 205243 2020 QCCQ 5737 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000603-198 DATE: August 21, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2013 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JA1013 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on October 11, 2019, so that the child remains entrusted to her paternal grandmother, until December 31, 2020. Her siblings are also aimed by the same proceeding. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and the father is absent due to work. However, all parties are assisted by a lawyer.

The parents agree mostly with the measures recommended by the DYP, except for the mother who disputes the maintenance of supervision of the contact with her children. [ 3 ] At t he last measure ordered, the situation of the parents was unsteady. The mother came back from the [Country A] at the end of August 2019. S he agreed to submit herself to a parental capacity assessment and to seek help to deal with her addiction problems. She also agreed to attend counselling and submit herself to random drug tests.

For the father, he was in jail for a certain period and afterwards was living with his father (paternal grandfather). He had contact with his children in the presence of the latter. The father wanted to get involved in the situation of his children and to take the necessary measures in order that they will be entrusted to him. He is willing to submit himself to all the requests of the DYP either the evaluations, counselling, or follow-ups as well as random drug testing. He must find an adequate living environment for his children.

For all these purposes, a period of time was necessary to assess the parent’s situation. ANALYSIS [ 4 ] Since the judgment ordered on October 11, 2019, some event occurs in the family situation. The parents were living with the paternal grandfather. At that time, the parents could see the children, more often and even unsupervised sometimes. In March 2020, they separated. The mother moved to her mother’s house and the father, at his mother as well. This separation caused a lot of turnaround in the family dynamic.

• M other [ 5 ] From March to May 2020, there was a suspension of mother-child contact, due to the pandemic. They begin again in June 2020. She never had unsupervised visits with the children, since the separation. It seems that she is appropriate in the presence of the children, although she cannot take care of the three children, alone. She takes care mostly of the youngest, leaving the other children with the contact supervisor. The mother mentions that she did not know that she had to take care of all of them, or else she would have.

On the other hand, the supervisor testifies that the mother cannot manage all the children at the same time without help. [ 6 ] The mother’s drug test came back positive, but she denies taking any. When contacted to do a drug screening test, she does not return her calls. This is the reason why; the DYP asks that the supervision of the contacts remains if necessary. [ 7 ] She benefits from a medical follow-up with her doctor for her drug addiction. Some changes in her medication were applied because of side effects.

She also compensated by using other drugs from the black market, which could explain the presence of oxycodone in her tests. According to her attending physician, the mother’s addiction is presently well managed with the current treatment, even though, it is not a classic substitution molecule for addictions. However, we learn during the mother’s testimony that she is supposed to have another change of medication.

This situation is worrying considering what happened the last time. [ 8 ] The mother lives with her mother, but recognizes that, this is not a good environment for the children, since the latter is a frequent drug user. The mother admits having participated in only one meeting with the psychologist, on the grounds that she did not like this professional. However, she began a follow-up with a counsellor, Mr. C. She is totally willing to submit herself to screening tests and to sign the necessary authorizations to communicate the results. Lately, she has had at least four to five drug tests.

She is still looking for a place to live, but nothing is available at the moment. • Father [ 9 ] The father did not participate in an anger management program nor any other therapy, as agreed at the previous hearing. He only attended one meeting with an addiction counsellor and did not return, on the pretext that the professional was unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, he did not take steps to find another therapist. He was supposed to find a suitable place to live with the children, but it was not done. [ 10 ] The father also benefits from a treatment for his drug addiction, and it seems to be under control.

His drug screening tests were all positive for marijuana and once for opiates, which can be explained following the use of a medication for a toothache. [ 11 ] At this time, the father’s contacts with the children are not supervised because he is living with his mother (maternal grandmother) who takes care of the children. However, he plans to move somewhere else but there is a lack of information on this subject. • Parents [ 12 ] Since the breakup, the relationship between the parents has been acrimonious.

The parental capacities have been assessed, and it turns out that they are concerned about the happiness and safety of their children. Still, their abilities are affected by their drug use. During the assessment, they were inconsistent and this is not a positive thing. They both remain emotionally vulnerable. The parents even if they previously agreed to participate in addiction counselling, they only went once, on the pretext that they don’t need it. • C hildren [ 13 ] X is 7 years old and lives with her paternal grandmother. The child is doing very well in that environment and also in school.

She misses her parents sometimes, mostly when their visitation’s time is over. [ 14 ] Y is 4 years old and is doing well. She is developing according to her age and learned many things such as potty training. She is more stable and very close to her older sister. She attends daycare, and it goes nicely. Her situation is very positive, and her language is improving. [ 15 ] Z is 5 years old and has been living with his paternal grandfather, but he had to be removed after the latter suffered a heart attack. He was entrusted to his maternal grandmother, with whom his sisters also live.

However, there were some issues about the environment of the paternal grandfather. The child adjusted correctly to that change, and he is doing well. His situation is a little different from his siblings, so the length of the measure should be distinctive as well.

DECISION [ 16 ] Given that the situation of the parents remains unstable as well as inconsistent, their lack of involvement in most of the follow- up there were supposed to do, the conclusion of the parental capacity’s assessment, the situation of the father who will maybe move soon, the possible changes of medication for the mother as well as their living conditions, the Court considers that both parents should have supervised contact for a little while. [ 17 ] Following the evidence adduces; the situation is too unpredictable to take the risk of lifting the supervision for both parents.

In the last measure, they promised a lot of things, which were not respected. There is too much going on at the moment, to do such a thing. [ 18 ] Now, the mother is aware that she has to care for all her children during their contacts. She will have the possibility to demonstrate that she can manage all of them, without help. However, specific moment could be given to the older children versus the youngest, in order to have quality time with all of them. [ 19 ] Of course, the supervision as to be lifted as soon as unnecessary.

It will be appropriate to extend the period of access in order to remove the supervision very soon. Let’s not forget that the mother is adequate during visitations, we will see how it goes with all of them

before taking a step further, considering the history. [ 20 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence, the admissions of the parties as well as their consent with most of the recommendations of the DYP, the application is well founded. Furthermore, these measures appear to be in the child’s best interest. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of the order; [ 22 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the y outh protection Act ; [ 23 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court order rendered on October 11, 2019; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her paternal grandmother, Mrs. D, until December 31, 2020; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined following an agreement between the parties, including their supervision, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her maternal grandmother, Mrs.

E, be supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 27 ] ORDER that the parents report periodically to the DYP on the measures they apply in their own regard or in their child’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents attend all the appointments with the DYP or professionals involved in their situation or their child’s situation; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents involve themselves in addiction counselling as long as deemed necessary by the professional involved; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents submit themselves to random drug test screenings; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until December 31, 2020; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Ariane Cayer for the child Me Isabelle Gagnon for the mother Me Alexis Deschênes for the father Date of hearing: August 5, 2020