2017 QCCQ 6084, 2017 QCCQ 6084

Protection de la jeunesse — 172675 2017 QCCQ 6084 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000533-171 DATE: March 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2004 Child -and- A -and- 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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security or development of the child is in danger. His siblings are aimed by the same request. The parties agree to present common evidence. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is absent but duly represented. Even if she mostly denies or denies as written the allegations, she agrees with the recommendations of the DYP. She also consent with the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author.

Besides no evidence was provided on her part. [ 3 ] The father is present but not represented. He admits the facts alleged in the application. He also agrees with the measures proposed by DYP, and the deposit of the report to value as testimony of its author. Still, he wants contacts with the children. [ 4 ] The child is absent but duly represented. Counsel for the child expresses his consent to the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the report to value as testimony of its author. [ 5 ] After a serious alleged situation was reported to DYP, notably that one of the children attempted suicide.

They were also allegations of physical abuse and neglect towards the children. For those reasons, an emergency protective measure was applied on January 24, 2017. The children were entrusted to a foster family. Afterwards, the measures were extended until the present hearing. [ 6 ] Two of the children have their specific problematic and difficulties. [ 7 ] The parents met several years ago. From their union were born two children. Furthermore, when they met each other, the mother already had a son, whom her partner eventually adopted.

They have always and still have a good relationship between them through the years. [ 8 ] The parents of the children have an on and off relationship. However, the father is always present and involved with them. During their common life, the father was very supportive and took responsibility helping raising the children. Even if he does not live with them he is not far away. His house is located within walking distance from the children’s home. [ 9 ] In the past, the father dealt with addiction problems. He claims that after the birth of his second son in 2007, he cleaned himself up.

Since then, he only takes prescribed drugs and occasionally uses marijuana. He is very present in the children’s lives and will do everything to help and support them. [ 10 ] The mother denies beating her children or having any issues with addictions. She is under the impressions that the children

make those statements because they refuse to follow any rules and structure that she established for them. [ 11 ] However, she admits that sometimes she felt overwhelmed with emotions. The evidence reveals that she demonstrates signs of frustrations and panic when a situation arises. She calls DYP recurrently and most of the time crying. [ 12 ] Nevertheless, the mother is very collaborative with the services and the interventions, in order to put an end, to the prevailing situation. She does not have problems sharing her feelings and keeping in touch with DYP delegate or the external educator.

She does everything possible to ensure her children have a stable environment. It was observed that she her behaviour changes quickly, going from an outburst of anger to sadness or happiness within a short period of time. [ 13 ] Since the children’s placement, supervised visit was organized. They went particularly well. The parents show excellent parenting skills and they respected the expectations and guidelines of visitation rules. [ 14 ] The child is 12 years old. He is diagnosed with an attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiance disorder and Tourette's syndrome.

Initially, he was entrusted to a rehabilitation unit for five days due to his multi-diagnosis. At the time, it was difficult to assess his needs. During that period, he was doing well, respectful pleasant and followed the rule. He was then entrusted to a foster family, where he is adjusting well. [ 15 ] At the time, he had not been in school since November 2016, during that period, he was living with the maternal grandmother, where he was neglected and his needs were not answered.

He attended school full time, starting January 10, 2017. [ 16 ] The psychosocial report points out the real issue about the dynamic of that family described as follows: “It is important to recognize that there are ongoing pattern of manipulation within the family unit. These ongoing patterns have affected and will continue to affect the emotional well-being, security and development of their 3 children […], should the situation remain the same.

We are confident that with all professional services in place the mother can be successful in putting an end to the situation. [1] ” [ 17 ] We cannot agree more to the fact that the situation has to change in order to avoid hopefully another placement of the children in the future. The children need a structured, secure and a stable environment. The mother can provide such an environment and care for the children’s needs with the support of the father and all the services put in place. [ 18 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the child still in danger.

Under the circumstances and considering the admission plus the consents of the parties, the application is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of the child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother, A, until March 31, 2018; [ 22 ] ORDERS that contacts between the child and his father are determined following agreement between the parties; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the child participate in a psychological evaluation; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in a psychological evaluation; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in a follow-up with an Addiction Counselor; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help deal with their personal issues; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents benefit from an external educator to help support with behaviour, discipline, structure and routine if needed; [ 28 ] ORDERS that neither parent talk negatively about the other in the presence of the children; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in anger management; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the measures ordered to put an end to the situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until March 31, 2018; [ 32 ] 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.

__________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Réal Grenier for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Mr. B the father Date of hearing: March 8, 2017 Written judgment filed on April 4, 2017