2014 QCCQ 8764, 2014 QCCQ 8764

Protection de la jeunesse — 14948 2014 QCCQ 8764 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC District of [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-022561-096 N°: 525-41-022560-098 N°: 525-41-022559-090 DATE: February 24, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant - and - X Born on [...] - and Y Born on [...] - and - Z Born on [...] - and - A - and - B - and - C, mother of Y Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 95 of 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 February 24, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with three motions for extension of orders rendered September 6, 2011, ordering that the children be entrusted to the care of Mr. B with a social follow-up for a period of two years. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motions are the following: • The children continue to live under the care of Mr. B and are doing well; • The children are doing well academically; • X and Y do not have any contacts with Ms. A ;

• Z has regular visits with her mother on weekends; • Y is still waiting to be assessed for ADHD; • Mr. B has started proceedings in Superior Court for the custody of the children, but states he is waiting for a trial date; • The relationship between Ms. A and Mr. B remains conflictual; • Mr. B states that Ms. A continues to drink and sometimes comes to the home and tries to pick fights with him; • About two weeks ago, Ms. A came to the home and started a fight with X ; • When Mr. B tried to intervene, Ms. A left and called the police, pressing charges against Mr.

B for assault; • X had to intervene with the police stating Mr. B did not hit her mother, in order for Mr. B not to be arrested; • Ms. A has not taken the steps to solve her issues; • Ms. A states she does not drink anymore, but was heard with a slurred speech on the phone; • Ms.

A is not cooperating with the Director of Youth Protection and has missed scheduled appointments with the worker. [ 4 ] At the hearing of November 11, 2013, the Court, with the consent of the parties, declares still compromised the security and development of the children. [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children continue to be entrusted to the care of Mr. B and that a social follow-up be provided to the family, in the case of X until her age of majority, October 10, 2014, and in the cases of Y and Z for a period of one year. [ 6 ] Mr.

B admits the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the measures recommended by DYP. Mr. B continues to collaborate fully with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] Ms. A admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and agrees with the recommended measures. She was recently incarcerated at Prison A . She says she intends to attend a program at Pavillon A for her alcohol problem. [ 8 ] Counsel for the children admits certain of the facts alleged in the motions. Me Grondin states that X and Y refuse to visit Ms. A . Furthermore, Y does not want any contacts with his mother C .

As for Z , she wishes to continue seeing her mother every weekend. [ 9 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. D , youth worker, and read the Court reports the Director filed as proof of the children's situation. [ 10 ] The evidence reveals that overall the children are doing well in Mr. B ’s care. As for Ms. C , she is still struggling with her alcohol problem and displays aggressive behaviours when she has been drinking. [ 11 ] Y is to have an assessment at the Hospital A concerning his ADHD. He is clear that he does not wish to have contacts with Ms. A at this time.

He also states that he refuses to see his mother, Ms. C . [ 12 ] As for X , she is presently completing her secondary five and will apply to CEGEP for admission in the 2014-2015 academic year. She confirms that she does not want contacts with her mother at this time. [ 13 ] Z is attending A elementary school and is in grade three. She visits her mother every weekend. However, since September 2013, these visits are usually under the supervision of Ms.

C ’ friend, E , as she has sometimes been drunk during the visits. [ 14 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be maintained in the care of Mr. B . Ms. A must address her personal problems if she wants to be part of the children's lives. [ 15 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT renders the following final measures: [ 16 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to the care of Mr. B until her age of majority; [ 17 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to the care of Mr. B for a period of one year; [ 18 ] ORDERS that Z be entrusted to the care of her father; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr.

B seek legal custody of all three children in Superior Court; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr. B take the appropriate steps to be registered as X ’s father on her birth certificate; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that DYP help Mr. B in his steps in Superior Court; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between all three children and Ms. A be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary, taking into account the wishes of the children; [ 23 ] ORDERS an interdiction of contacts between Y and his mother, Ms. C ; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that Ms.

A not present herself at the home of Mr. B unless authorized by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 25 ] ORDERS that certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn from the mother in the cases of X and Z and ORDERS that Mr. B be authorized to sign all consents for both children; [ 26 ] ORDERS that certain attributes of parental authority be withdrawn to the mother of Y , C , and ORDERS that Mr. B be authorized to sign all consents concerning the child; [ 27 ] RECOMMENDS that Mr. B and Ms.

A ensure that there is no form of violence between them in the presence of the children; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children receive all health care services required by their situation and more particularly: • ORDERS that Y be seen at the Douglas for his ADHD and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that an assessment is scheduled for March 24, 2014; • ORDERS that the recommendations of the treating professionals be followed; [ 29 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to receive pertinent information from all treating professionals and services involved with the family; [ 30 ] ORDERS in the case of X , that aid, counsel and assistance be provided until her age of majority; [ 31 ] ORDERS in the cases of Y and Z , that aid, counsel and assistance be provided for a period of one year; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X , Y and Z , to the Director of Youth Protection A , who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 33 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed March 26, 2014 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Guy-Luc Grondin (Counsel for the children) Me Judith Shapiro Knight (Counsel for A Me Maïa Sureau (Counsel for Mr.

B) Date of hearing: November 11, 2013, and February 24, 2014