2012 QCCQ 13959, 2012 QCCQ 13959

Protection de la jeunesse — 125678 2012 QCCQ 13959 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N°: 525-41-022856-090 DATE: October 22, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection A Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2000 - and - A - and - B Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of October 22, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion for extension of an order rendered December 9, 2011, entrusting the child to his mother’s care at the exclusion of the father and that a social follow-up be provided to the family until September 1, 2012. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The child continued to reside with the mother; • The child attended school regularly and was reported as being a cooperative student; • The child received tutoring for Math and French; • The child will be attending the first year of high school in September 2012; • The father regularly attended his appointments with the psychologist and psychiatrist; • The mother is calmer and is more positive about the child; • The family has the intention to reunite; • Since the month of May 2012, the father was spending the two overnight weekends at the home; • In addition, the father was encouraged to spend time with the child doing activities. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to the mother’s care, taking judicial notice that the father will be reintegrating the family home.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of six months.

[ 5 ] The parents admit the facts alleged in the motion and consent to the measures recommended by DYP. [ 6 ] Counsel for the child considers that the measures recommended by DYP are in the child’s best interest. [ 7 ] The Court also read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that the father spends two or three overnights at the family home and that he spends time with his son and that they do activities. [ 8 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his mother’s care with a social follow-up for a period of six months.

This period is necessary to preserve the gains made by the family and to ensure that the father’s reintegration in the family home is completed. [ 9 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are still compromised. [ 10 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 12 ] DECLARES still compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to the care of his mother; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and his father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the father will be reintegrating the family home; [ 15 ] ORDERS the father to meet with his psychiatrist as requested and to take his medication as prescribed; [ 16 ] ORDERS the father to refrain from any verbal or physical violence towards the mother, the child or property; [ 17 ] ORDERS the mother to refrain from any verbal or physical violence towards the father; [ 18 ] ORDERS the father to abstain from any illicit drugs; [ 19 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to receive pertinent information from service providers to the family, including the child’s school; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for the period of six months; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 22 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed October 23, 2012 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Pauline Laforce Counsel for the child Me Marc Morin Counsel for the father

Date of hearing: October 22, 2012