2015 QCCQ 19046, 2015 QCCQ 19046

Protection de la jeunesse — 159670 2015 QCCQ 19046 JG1900 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] No. 550-41-001601-143 DATE: October 6, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE LINE GOSSELIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANTE 1], person authorized by the Director of Youth Protection Petitioner and X Child and A B In their capacity as parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified.

Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , the petitioner seized the Court of a motion to extend the decision of April 30, 2014 concerning X, born on […] 2011. [ 2 ] She suggested that the child remain with her mother and see her father, along with various other protective measures, applicable for one (1) year. [ 3 ] The ground invoked pertained to the parents' difficulties in taking steps to have the child begin daycare, obtain her vaccinations and live in an adequate environment, in a context where the couple's relationship was not clear. [ 4 ] The mother, through her lawyer, confirmed that the child has started daycare and will have received all the vaccinations by August 2015, and that the family home is neat and clean.

She confirmed that the child receives the services of a speech therapist for her language delay. [ 5 ] This is why she questioned in part the petitioner's intervention in the family's life and submitted that the proposed duration was too long. [ 6 ] The father, who chose not to be represented by a lawyer, felt that the file should be closed. [ 7 ] The hearing was held on June 23 and October 6, 2015. [ 8 ] He said he would be represented by a lawyer at the next hearing, but was not, however.

He had many comments to make about X's situation, as follows. [ 9 ] First, he confirmed that his relationship with the mother has its ups and downs. He stays with her a certain time, then leaves when nothing works anymore. He always goes back, though. He stated that he does not have a fixed domicile and that, yes, he is a fairly compulsive video game player.

[ 10 ] Second, the conflicts between him and the mother are caused by the presence of eight (8) cats in the home. She does not want to get rid of them. [ 11 ] Third, he states that he is very involved with X who, in his view, does not raise any of the concerns expressed by the petitioner. X's language has improved considerably. She is very easily understood and does not have any behaviour that could be tied to the autism spectrum. [ 12 ] Four, he wants to live in [Province A] with the mother and the child.

He said he was threatened with the child's withdrawal from their living environment, if the family left the area. He is from [Province A] and speaks only English. [ 13 ] On that point, he questioned the choice of a Francophone speech therapist for X, who expresses herself primarily in English. He confirmed that the child is gradually being integrated into daycare, but said that she acts out a lot when she leaves with her mother in the morning to go there. At the centre, she cries when her mother leaves, but stops afterward.

He therefore asked that daycare attendance not be mandatory every day of the week. [ 14 ] Last, he said that he wants to cooperate. He invited the petitioner to go to their home to observe what he was trying to describe before the undersigned. [ 15 ] That said, the parents once again stated that what they want is to live in [Town A], where the father has had an apartment since June 2015. They even spent the previous weekend there. The mother's lease ends on May 20, 2016. [ 16 ] She added that she got rid of her cats, except for two (2), and had to be hospitalized for her asthma.

During her hospitalization, she entrusted the child to the spouse of her late maternal grandmother, who had been a significant person for her. We must remember that the unsanitary condition of the premises cannot be contested given the number of cats. The father confirmed this and was even no longer able to stand it. [ 17 ] The mother admits the situation and acknowledges that, in the past, she did not allow the petitioner to see her apartment or some of the rooms in it. Since June 2015, the petitioner has visited her home twice, i.e. recently. The petitioner smelled a strong odour of urine and poor sanitation.

The mother opened a window. She did not allow the petitioner to go into one of the bedrooms. [ 18 ] In that regard, the Court considers that the mother must give the petitioner free access to her apartment and that the premises must be clean so that X can live in an environment that is healthy and pleasant for her. [ 19 ] That was the context in which the mother added that the father could see the child when he wishes, which he in fact does.

He no longer seems to be addicted to video games, as the mother no longer has Internet access. [ 20 ] But in the hearing room on October 6, 2015, a few incidents arose in relation to the parents' loyalty to one another in their emotional relationships. The parents reacted [TRANSLATION] "emotionally" to what was going on. The Court had to smooth out the situation. This is why it is quite difficult to know whether or not the couple will maintain a relationship in the future. [ 21 ] That said, the parents confirmed that their daughter is more Anglophone than Francophone.

She speaks English better than French and she sings in English. [ 22 ] Yet X receives PAPFC services from a Francophone speech therapist, in a group with several other children. The mother participates and supplements certain aspects of the follow-up. The therapist explains the exercises to the mother, who then translates them for her daughter.

This is why the parents do not see the follow-up as being true speech therapy exclusive to their daughter. [ 23 ] According to the petitioner, it is the only follow-up that can be provided to the child at the moment. [ 24 ] But according to what the mother found out from the speech therapist in question, there are seven

(7) Anglophone speech therapists in the area. To access those services more rapidly, the mother needs a referral from the petitioner, which is why the Court will order that for X. [ 25 ] As for the rest, the child received all the necessary vaccinations and is attending daycare. Things are going well in that setting, but the mother feels that given the child's ease in English, she is unable to make herself understood in French by her friends at daycare. This means that she cannot really interact socially.

Added to that, she is a sensitive child who cries when someone she knows leaves her. [ 26 ] Lastly, the mother admits that she missed the appointment at the Clinique du Petit copain on September 29, 2015. She missed the transportation that the petitioner had provided.

The appointment at Pierre-Janet was cancelled by the hospital, given the service restructuring in the region. [ 27 ] In short, X's situation is improving, in that the mother is involved with the PAPFC, does the speech therapy exercises with the child (the language delay is still present, but seems to be less severe, at least in French), makes sure that the child attends daycare, and cooperates more with the petitioner, by getting rid of several cats, among other things. [ 28 ] For his part, the father seems to be becoming more stable, as he has found a place to live and now has employment (the Court does not know if it is regular).

He wants to see his daughter at his home, which will be possible once the petitioner has visited the dwelling and confirmed that it is adequate for the little girl, which should be done soon. [ 29 ] To conclude, given that the mother's lease ends in May 2016 and the parents want to raise their child in English, the duration of the protective measures will correspond to the term of the lease. [ 30 ] Lastly, the undersigned informed the parents that Canadian citizens have the right to take up residence where they wish ( s. 6 of the Canadian Charter ).

[ 31 ] In the circumstances, the undersigned has no hesitation in declaring that the child's security and development are still endangered and in allowing the protective measures suggested, which are amply supported by the evidence and adapted to the child's needs. [ 32 ] The motion is founded in law; it is in the interest of X and respects her rights. THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 33 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 34 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still endangered; [ 35 ] EXTENDS the decision made on April 30, 2014; [ 36 ] ORDERS the enforcement of the following protective measures until May 20, 2016 :

a) That the child be kept with her mother, in her family environment;

b) ACKNOWLEDGES that if the parents remain a couple, the father will go to the mother's home to see the child or, if not , that the child will visit her father as agreed between him and the caseworker or, failing that, will visit him for the weekend every second week at his home;

c) That a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to X and her family;

d) That the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered: 1. that they cooperate with the person in charge of the social follow-up; 2. that the mother continue her follow-up with PAPFC;

e) That the child receive the health care and services required by her condition, in particular speech therapy that should preferably be in English since the child is Anglophone;

f) That the child attend daycare; [ 37 ] ACKNOWLEDGES that the parents wish to live in [Town A] in the interest of their daughter who speaks English rather than French; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents take steps rapidly to find a speech therapist and a daycare centre for the child in [Province A], before they leave Québec; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this decision. __________________________________ Line Gosselin J.C.Q. Mtre. Ariane Beaulieu, for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Daniel Lessard, for the child Mtre.

Marc Doyon, for the mother The father, B, self-represented Date of hearing: Date of filing at Court office: June 23 and October 6, 2015 October 9, 2015