2018 QCCQ 14818, 2018 QCCQ 14818

Protection de la jeunesse — 185032 2018 QCCQ 14818 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000714-162 DATE: August 3, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E. GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X born on [...], 2015 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] Mother and MR.

B, domiciled and residing at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on February 28, 2017, in the situation of X, born on [...], 2015. At that date, the Court declared that the security and development of the child were still in danger.

The Court entrusted the child to his father for the next 12 months and ordered that the contacts between the mother and the child be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 2 ] The applicant is requesting that the Court maintains that the situation of the child is still endangered and recommends that the child be entrusted to his father. [ 3 ] The parents are present but only the father is represented by a lawyer. The child is also represented. [ 4 ] The father and the mother agree with the recommendations of the applicant and that the child be entrusted to the father.

EVALUATION OF THE SITUATION [ 5 ] The child was entrusted to the father for a period of one year. He is healthy and active. His development is very normal for a child of that age. He is attached to both parents and affectionate towards them. [ 6 ] The conflicts between the parents remain. They still text each other with some inappropriate language. [ 7 ] The mother was in jail from February 2017 to September 2017. After being released, she came to a meeting with the workers. Her attitude was very positive. Then, she left for a therapy of three weeks.

At the end of this therapy, she left again for six more weeks for another therapy. [ 8 ] Since she’s been back from her different therapies, she’s been very collaborative with the services of the applicant and sees her son on a weekly basis. The visits take place at her home. [ 9 ] The mother is attending meetings on a weekly basis and although the meetings are in Town A, she has been regularly. ANALYSIS [ 10 ] Since her time in prison and in different therapies, the mother has been sober since February of last year. Her attitude towards the services has completely changed.

During meetings, she can listen to the concerns of the workers and not become aggressive towards them or the system.

[ 11 ] The mother’s biggest challenge will be to maintain how she is doing and maintain her motivation. [ 12 ] The child is attached to his father and his mother. The father wants what is best for his child and he’s the one who has him full time. The father makes sure that the child receives all the health services needed. [ 13 ] CONSIDERING that both parents agree that the child be entrusted to the father; [ 14 ] CONSIDERING that the mother has been collaborating with the services; [ 15 ] The Court considers that a period of eight months would be sufficient.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2015, are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his father; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the child be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and length and be supervised with the presence of a third party if judge necessary; [ 20 ] HIGHLY RECOMMENDS that in two months, the mother may benefit of having her child for a full weekend and then after every other weekend; [ 21 ] ORDERS that unannounced visits at the residence be allowed; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the mother continue her follow-up and her meetings for NA, AA and CA for as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 23 ] 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 or development of the child is in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother does not consume any drugs or alcohol in the child’s presence and that she remains sober in the child’s presence; [ 25 ] ORDERS 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 or development of the child is in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the child’s parents; [ 27 ] All the above measures are for a period of eight months; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents receive services concerning their conflicts; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the police force collaborate to the execution of the Court order; [ 30 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the present judgment. __________________________________ MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. M e Julie Lemire Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Catherine Dionne-Marcotte Lawyer for the child M e Andréanne Laberge Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: May 25, 2018