2022 QCCQ 14540, 2022 QCCQ 14540

Protection de la jeunesse — 229193 2022 QCCQ 14540 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000643-148 DATE: December 13, 2022 (written judgment rendered on May 5, 2023) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A Applicant and A Mother and B ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review a decision rendered on February 28, 2022, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2008. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to his father until August 31, 2022. [ 2 ] The DYP initially submitted that the situation would not allow to return the child to his mother and asked that the child be entrusted to his father, Mr. B until August 31, 2023.

But, at the hearing, the recommendations changed and the DYP asked to return the child under the mother’s care. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Lola Rodriguez-Melka. She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and not represented.

He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered, and he does not challenge the measures but would prefer a share custody between the parents. [ 5 ] The child / youth is absent and represented by Me Samuel Richard-Guertin. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered, and he agrees with the measures. [ 6 ] The youth has one brother, Y and the Court is also seized with his situation. Facts [ 7 ] The evidence shows that the children’s situation positively evolved since they were entrusted to their father.

Indeed, they attended school regularly and the comments from the school as well from the Organism A (collaborator in Ontario) are very positive. [ 8 ] The father counts a lot on the maternal grandmother to provide support and to babysit the children. [ 9 ] The father found a new job and his

schedule does not permit him to continue to foster the children on a regular basis. For this reason, he suggests that the children be in shared custody 2 weeks with him and 2 weeks with the mother. [ 10 ] The father is confident that the mother will be able to continue to improve her situation and trusts her to take care of the children. [ 11 ] During the summer, the mother was arrested in Ontario and drugs was found in her vehicle. She explained that it was not her drugs and that it was the lady to whom she offered a ride that forgot it in her car. This lady came to testify at the Criminal Court to confirm it.

Doing so, the mother would not have pending criminal cases. The father trusts the mother’s version.

[ 12 ] Although work still must be done by the mother, the DYP also considers that she had been able to improve her situation. The first improvement is regarding her sobriety. She completed a closed therapy and did not relapse since then. She continues to attend NA meetings. Her spouse is attending with her to provide her with support. [ 13 ] The DYP worker also notes that the mother appears to be in better health with more energy.

She wakes up in the morning, she collaborates more, and she had set a better routine. [ 14 ] The cleaning of the house continues to be an issue for the mother as it could came quickly messy. [ 15 ] Another improvement had been noted regarding the collaboration and the involvement of the mother’s spouse which is appreciated by the children. [ 16 ] The DYP has considered the father’s new plan and his suggestion to implement a share custody.

After assessing the situation, the DYP does not recommend such modality which would create more instability for the children. [ 17 ] Doing so, the DYP suggest that the children be entrusted back to the mother but asks that the contacts with the maternal grandmother be determined by the DYP worker. Indeed, the mother tends to regularly request help from the grandmother which prevent the implementation of the routine at home. [ 18 ] The evidence shows that the situation of the children continues to be endangered and that the support from the DYP remains necessary.

The mother was able to take concrete steps to improve her situation and she needs to continue on that way to definitively put an end to the situation of endangerment. [ 19 ] She is aware about what is expected from her and with the appropriate support she should be able to do it. [ 20 ] The Court agrees with the DYP regarding the share custody suggested by the father. The children, through out the last years, lived a lot of instability. It is very important to avoid another situation that would bring instability. [ 21 ] The mother is working hard on the implementation of the routine.

Doing so, the children should remain with her and the contacts with the father and with the grandmother must be well structured.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2008, are still endangered. [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the frequency and the modalities of the contacts between the child and his father and his grandmother be determined by the Director of Youth protection; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contact with the father take place minimally for 2 days every other weekend; [ 27 ] AUTORIZES the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life as for assiduity, frequency and achievement of objectives; [ 28 ] AUTORIZES unannounced visits at all times in the home when the child is present and that the parents collaborate by opening the door; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents always be awake and available in the presence of the children when they are at home and awake; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the mother seek services from her doctor for her health situation and that she follow the recommendations of the professional; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the mother provide random drugs test on the Director of Youth Protection’s demand to monitor her sobriety; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child receive specific health cares and health services required by his situation notably as personal follow-up; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the child’s family. [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order. [ 36 ] THE WHOLE until August 31, 2023. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Marie-Michelle Grenier Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Samuel Richard-Guertin Attorney for the child Me Lola Rodriguez-Melka Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: December 13, 2022