2017 QCCQ 9858, 2017 QCCQ 9858

Protection de la jeunesse — 174207 2017 QCCQ 9858 JL4320 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N° : 450-41-005579-157 DATE : MAY 23 rd 2017 IN THE PRSENCE OF : THE HONOURABLE MONIQUE LAVALLÉE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD * : X, born on [...] 2015 -et- [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , person duly autorized by the Directeur of Youth Protection for the CIUSSS A, working at [...], City A (Québec), district A, [...], Applicant and A , residing at [...], City B (Québec), district A, [...], and B , residing at [...], City B (Québec) district A, [...], Child’s parents . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director or DYP) is asking the Court to revise a Court order rendered on June 9 th 2016 concerning X aged nineteen months. [ 2 ] On that date, Judge Lise Gagnon ordered :

• the child’s placement in the maternal grandfather’s foster family; • authorized supervised contacts with his parents after agreement with the Director.

In case of disagreement, the contacts are set at one hour every two weeks; • took judicial notice that the Director would prepare a life project for the child excluding his return to his parents’ care; • ordered a social follow-up and other accessories measures, the whole for a period of six months. [ 3 ] Today, the Director is essentially requesting that the Court extend the present measures for a period of six months in order to continue to prepare a life plan for the child. [ 4 ] In support of his application, the Director filed a revision report dated December 7 th 2016 (exhibit D-18).

The Court heard the testimonies of the maternal grandfather, the father and the social worker. [ 5 ] The father if represented by an attorney who consents to the filing of the report. The father is asking the Court to entrust X to him. If the Court chooses not to do so, he is asking that his son be removed from the maternal grandfather’s home and be placed in another foster family and that his visitations with him be increased. [ 6 ] The mother is also present at the hearing and is represented by an attorney.

She consents to the filing of the report and is in agreement with the Director’s recommendations. [ 7 ] After hearing the evidence, the child’s attorney is also in agreement with the DYP’s recommendations. Evolution since June 9 th 2016 X : [ 8 ] X continues to live with his maternal grandfather and his spouse. He has lived there since he was six days old. [ 9 ] He is doing very well in his grandfather’s care and has developed a strong bond with his caregivers. [ 10 ] The grandfather cooperates very well with the DYP.

He is proactive in ensuring X’s needs are met. [ 11 ] The grandfather is open to contacts between X and his parents but is able to set clear limits to both parents if necessary. [ 12 ] He and his spouse are very invested with X and are willing and able to care for him for the long term. [ 13 ] At the revision meeting held in December, he agreed with the Director’s recommendations that he be appointed X’s tutor but that plan now has to be further assessed since the relationship between the father and the grandfather has soured.

Parents/ child contacts : [ 14 ] X sees each of his parents for 90 minutes every second week alternating between his mother and his father every week. [ 15 ] The mother cancelled numerous visits for various reasons notably for lack of transportation or because of illness. [ 16 ] The father is most often present at his visits although he missed two visits in a row recently (April 19 th and May 3 rd ) for reasons that are unclear [1] .

He would like to see his son more often and recently proposed to see X when the mother cancels her visits. [ 17 ] The visits generally go well and no adverse reactions by X are observed following the contacts. [ 18 ] Until October X’s visits with his parents were held at the Youth Protection offices. [ 19 ] The grandfather suggested that the visits take place at his home because this was easier for X and allowed him to avoid the traveling and supervision by various strangers. [ 20 ] The visits at the grandfather’s home began on X’s birthday. [ 21 ] The father/son visits went well but the grandfather states that the father would call him several times a week (almost every day), sometimes at work, just to see how X was doing. [ 22 ] At the revision meeting in December, the grandfather asked the father to call less often and not to call him at work.

The father denies calling the grandfather that often and was insulted by the grandfather’s request. [ 23 ] In February, the grandfather states that on two separate visits, he suspected the father was under the influence of drugs. His pupils were dilated and he seemed stressed out. On one occasion, the father received a phone call and was then in a hurry to leave. [ 24 ] According to the grandfather, on the last occasion, the father repeatedly used vulgar language in front of X and asked the

grandfather’s spouse to go upstairs into X’s room with him. [ 25 ] A few days later, the grandfather spoke to the father about his behaviour at the last visit and said that he expected him to behave in a respectful manner in his home on future visits. [ 26 ] The father got angry and said he would call his lawyer. [ 27 ] Following that last visit at the grandfather’s home on February 15 th,, the father’s visits were moved back to the DYP’s offices and are supervised by supervisors working for the Centre Jeunesse. [ 28 ] The grandfather has not spoken to the father since then.

He is open to father/ son contacts at his home as long as the father behaves in a respectful manner. [ 29 ] The father denies the grandfather’s version of events. He stated that he has not used drugs since 2005 and says he did not use vulgar language or «hit on» the grandfather’s spouse. [ 30 ] The father acknowledges that he was offered the chance to return to the grandfather’s for the visits if he was respectful but says he refused the offer. [ 31 ] The father wants the visits to be held at his home.

The social worker disagrees because the father lives an hour away which would mean a two hour drive back and forth for X for a 90 minute visit. The mother : [ 32 ] The mother has been in a relationship with C since April 2016. [ 33 ] Her boyfriend was in jail for approximately two months and was released on November 28 th . The mother states the relationship is better than it was in the past. [ 34 ] At the beginning of May however she called her father in the middle of the night and told him her boyfriend had left her.

This morning however, the mother told the case worker that she and her boyfriend are still together. [ 35 ] Since the last Court order, the mother has moved four times. The first three times she did not think to inform the social worker who would later find out by specifically questioning the mother or through a third party. [ 36 ] The mother has been very difficult to reach by the social worker. She has had different phone numbers.

She is presently without a phone and the case worker has to leave messages with various third parties in order to contact her. [ 37 ] The worker suggested they meet alter her supervised visits with her son but she sometimes tells to worker she has to leave immediately after the visit because the person transporting her was waiting.

The worker’s contacts with the mother were therefore limited. [ 38 ] She was also supposed to attend X’s various medical appointments but finally refused to be present because she did not want to take the risk of being in the father’s presence. [ 39 ] The mother states she does not have an alcohol abuse problem and denies the father’s statements to the contrary. [ 40 ] The mother is receiving no services for her personal issues. [ 41 ] The mother’s understanding of why X was entrusted to the grandfather’s care remains limited. She would like to have her son return to her care if possible.

Otherwise she is happy that X is living at his grandfather’s where he is well cared for and she wants him to remain there. [ 42 ] At the revision meeting held in December, she was in agreement with the plan that the grandfather be appointed X’s tutor. The father : [ 43 ] The father presently lives with his father in City B although he spent a lot of time at his last girlfriend’s home in City A. [ 44 ] Since November 2016, the father, who is 36 years old, has had two girlfriends (aged 20 and 18 years old).

He is now single and stated at the hearing « I don’t want those young girls anymore ». [ 45 ] The father states he has ceased all drug and alcohol use although the mother alleges the contrary. [ 46 ] He continues to take his medication daily for his anxiety and panic attacks. [ 47 ] The father cooperates with the case worker and shows an interest in his son. He is sometimes present at the child’s medical appointments. [ 48 ] The father’s understanding of why X was entrusted to the maternal grandfather also seems limited.

[ 49 ] The father states that he is able to care for his son and that if he lost his two eldest children it was the mother’s fault because of her drinking and regularly calling the police on him. [ 50 ] He says that he has changed his life around since his separation from the mother. [ 51 ] He acknowledges he agreed to the tutorship plan at the revision meeting in December but says that he has since changed his mind because he no longer gets along with the grandfather and his spouse with whom he use to have a good relationship. [ 52 ] He is very disappointed in the grandfather for saying, what he claims, are lies about him. [ 53 ] He states that if the couple had never done this to him they would still be talking and everything would be fine.

He says he trusted the grandfather with all his heart and « look what he’s doing to me now ». [ 54 ] If the Court does not entrust X to him, he wants the Court to remove X from the grandfather’s care and order his foster family placement. [ 55 ] When asked what impact he thinks that would have on his son, he says that X is still young, he doesn’t know the difference and it would therefore have no impact on him. Protective measures [ 56 ] In the last Court order, judge Gagnon was very clear with both parents that X would not be returning to their care.

She wrote : [12] Both parents understand that X will not return under their care because of their well documented personal difficulties. [13] X has been entrusted to his maternal grandfather since October 15 th 2015; [14] The maternal grandfather and his wife are aware of the parents’ difficulties; [15] The maternal grandfather and his wife can assume responsibility for the child. They are committed to X on a long-term basis. If something would happen to their relationship, the grandfather would be in a position to keep X alone.

The mother’s sister is also contributing positively to X’s care. (Exhibit D-16). [16] The maternal grandfather and his wife collaborate well with the DYP. [17] Both parents want to make some changes in their lives in order to be able to provide a positive contribution to X’s life plan at his grandfather’s home. [18] At the hearing, the Court was quite clear with the parents. The next six months will be critical.

These months will serve to evaluate the role the parents may be able to play in X’s life plan on a part time basis. [19] The parents are invited to improve their personal situation in order to try to make a positive contribution to X’s life.

They are also invited to interact positively with the maternal grandfather and be supportive on the child’s environment. [20] These are all elements the Court will consider at the next hearing to determine X’s best life plan. [ 57 ] The Court must analyse the situation from the child’s perspective and render a decision based on his needs and his best interest and not those of the parents. [ 58 ] X has lived with the maternal grandfather and his spouse since he was six days old. [ 59 ] His is thriving under their care and it is the only family environment he has ever known. [ 60 ] When considering the child’s needs and best interest, there is nothing in the evidence that would lead the Court to consider removing X from his grandfather’s care. [ 61 ] To remove X from his present environment simply because the father no longer gets along with the grandfather and his spouse, while respecting the father’s wishes, would be gravely prejudicial to X’s development. [ 62 ] The mere fact that the father is requesting the Court to do so and that he believes X would not know the difference, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of his son’s needs. [ 63 ] This is not new and the parents’ well documented inability to understand and meet their older children’s needs was the main reason those children were also removed from their care. [ 64 ] X’s life plan is to remain in the care of his grandfather and his spouse for the long term.

What form that will take (tutorship, adoption or long term foster care placement) remains to be clarified and that is why the DYP is asking the Court for a six months extension order. [ 65 ] As for the contacts between the child and his parents, their purpose in the present situation, is not to prepare the child’s eventual return to his parents’ care but rather to maintain the parents presence in the child’s life through positive and regular interactions with them.

[ 66 ] The visits must serve to support, not impede, X’s life plan, contribute positively to his development, not create confusion, and must be planned and organised according to the child’s and not the parents’ needs. [ 67 ] It is unreasonable to have a child X’s age spend two hours in a car in order to spend 90 minutes with his father every second week. [ 68 ] Ideally for X the visits would take place in his own environment at the grandfather’s home.

The grandfather is open to that possibility if the father agrees to behave respectfully but the father refuses to discuss the situation with the grandfather saying that he feels disrespected. That is his choice but he, not X, must bear the consequences of that choice. [ 69 ] The Court can only encourage the father to reconsider his decision and to try and work things out with the grandfather and his spouse. That would be, in the Court’s view, in everyone’s best interest. [ 70 ] In the meantime, the present visitation

schedule and modalities appear to meet X’s needs and serve his best interest. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS the present application; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on June 9, 2016 in the present file; ORDERS X’s placement in the foster family of his maternal grandfather, Mr.

C; AUTHORIZES in the child’s favour, supervised contacts with his parents, according to the modalities set with the Director of Youth Protection; in case of disagreement, the contacts will occur every two weeks for a period of 90 minutes; ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered notably that they inform the Director of Youth Protection of any change in their personal situation; ORDERS that a person working for the CIUSSS A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child X and his parents, the whole for a period of six months; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Monique Lavallée, J.C.Q.

M e Christine Loubier Attorney for the D.Y.P. M e Jean-Luc Labelle Attorney for the father M e Chantal Kemp-Bélanger Attorney for the mother M e Émilie Tanguay Attorney for the child Dates of hearing : March 29 th and May 23 rd 2017 Last exhibits : D-18, P-1