2023 QCCQ 10386, 2023 QCCQ 10386

Protection de la jeunesse — 235147 2023 QCCQ 10386 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 145-41-000763-224 DATE : July 27, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2009 Child and A B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on December 15, 2022, in respect of the child in order to entrust her to the father and to maintain the measures until June 30, 2024. [ 2 ] At the hearing, only the father and the child are present. Even if the mother is absent, she is duly represented by a lawyer. All parties consent with the recommendations presented by the DYP.

CONTEXT [ 3 ] Since the last order, the child’s situation has had its ups and downs and has deteriorated over time. On May 16, 2023, the DYP applied an immediate protective measure regarding the child in order to entrust her to a rehabilitation center, because she was demonstrating negative behaviours placing herself at risk. This measure was extended afterwards.

On May 25, 2023, a provisional measure was rendered entrusting the child to a rehabilitation center until the present hearing. [ 4 ] The evidence submitted is summarized as follows: [ 5 ] Regarding the mother, she mobilized herself and is making efforts to change her life to care for her child. She went to a women’s shelter and works there in collaboration with an addiction counsellor to be able to attend a treatment center. She began a three-week program which she completed on June 30, 2023.

She is also accepted into another eight-week program. [ 6 ] At the beginning of the measures, the father did not participate. He made an appearance in May 2023 but was unable to come up with a plan of action for his child. He has a few supervised visits with her in June 2023. At that point, the father mentions that he resolved the problem by not drinking. He is in a relationship with a partner who does not drink, and no alcohol is allowed in the house. [ 7 ] When the child was initially living with her grandmother along with her father, she had to be entrusted to a rehabilitation center due to her behaviour.

She was disrespectful and did not respect the rules. Thereafter, another placement with her father was attempted but the child ran away because of the rules put in place at home. [ 8 ] Faced with this situation, the parents agreed that the child would be living with her maternal aunt. The child was entrusted to her maternal aunt and was doing well until last May. As of then, she started not coming home and not informing her foster family about

her whereabouts. This led to the intervention of the DYP and the measure entrusting the child to a rehabilitation center. [ 9 ] Last May she ran away again during the weekend, and she refused to come home unless she was entrusted to a rehabilitation center. This situation leads to the current placement. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 10 ] The evidence presented is summed up in these few paragraphs. Today, the DYP asks that the child be entrusted to the father based only on this thin evidence.

However, considering the lack of evidence submitted, which does not sustain the recommendations sought by the DYP, the court does not believe that she met its burden. In these circumstances the Court cannot, considering the evidence adduced, follow the suggested recommendations. [ 11 ] The social report is very brief and after hearing the testimony of the youth delegate, it is obvious that a lot of information is missing regarding the situation of the child. There is no report disclosing her behaviour at the rehabilitation center even if she has been entrusted there since May 2023.

When questioned about the whereabouts of the child or any information regarding her, the questions were often left unanswered by the youth delegate. It looks like the follow-up concerning the child was neglected, or so it seems. [ 12 ] The assessment of the child’s situation is incomplete and inconclusive, which could not allow at this stage, to entrust the child to her father. The Court has no information as to how the visits, with the father are going, which only started last June.

Only saying that the child is “OK” if entrusted to the father and that everything will be fine is insufficient and not reassuring regarding her history. [ 13 ] Furthermore, there were no visits into the father’s environment nor any meeting with the father’s girlfriend. The facts submitted are not satisfactory to persuade the Court that this is the way to go.

To the contrary, the evidence shows that the child has real behavioural issues which seem not to have been attended or resolved; or at least the evidence is silent or insufficient on this aspect. [ 14 ] The Court believes that the return of the child to her father’s environment has not been sufficiently prepared and doubts that it would work as planned considering that the past two attempts were unsuccessful. [ 15 ] The child’s situation must be assessed more in depth in order to have a real idea of what is going on in all the spheres of her life.

In the meantime, she will remain entrusted to a rehabilitation center because the evidence does not reveal if her negative behaviour has improved or is no longer a problem or is under manageable control. However, the measure will be shorter in order to reassess the whole situation at another hearing. This will allow all parties to make full disclosure of the current situation. [ 16 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the evidence adduced, the application is in part well founded. The measure recommended will be modified.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 19 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on December 15, 2022; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation center, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre, until September 30, 2023; [ 21 ] AUTHORIZES the child to benefit from outings in her father’s environment for a period exceeding fifteen days if the situation allows it. [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be determined according to an agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober in the presence of the child; [ 24 ] PROHIBITS the parents to denigrate the other parent or social services, in the presence of the child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working in an organization, or an institution brings to the child as well as to her family, help, advice and support until September 30, 2023; [ 27 ] 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. [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parties concerned by this order to comply with it.

__________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Mylène Pelletier-Rivet for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Arianne Cayer for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: July 6, 2023