2015 QCCQ 17753, 2015 QCCQ 17753

Protection de la jeunesse — 155677 2015 QCCQ 17753 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000460-144 DATE: August 5, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], authorized person by the DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2013 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 revise and extend the order rendered on February 25, 2015, in respect of the child. His twin and other siblings are aimed by the same request. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and represented.

She agrees with the measures proposed by the DYP and the filing of the report to value the testimony of their author. [ 3 ] Concerning the father, the DYP request to be dispensed of the serving of the petition since he is in [Country A]. The evidence shows that the father was aware of the hearing set on this day, and the worker discussed with him about the measures that will be proposed to the court. At the time, he was assisted by the Director of tribal counsel for child services of his community. He mentioned to the worker that he would not be present at the court hearing on August 5, 2015.

Furthermore, he signed a document on July 29, 2015 stating that he agrees with the recommendations of the DYP, and it also mentions the Court date. Moreover, the father was present over the phone while the revision of child’s file occurred, and he is well aware of the situation in this file.

For these reasons and in the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed and court will dispense the hearing of this petition to the father. [ 4 ] The father is not present in the child’s life. [ 5 ] On September 30, 2014, the YPD got involved with the family after the mother committed physical abuse on her older children. The intervention led to the entrusting of the children to a foster family, and the mother had an interdiction to contact them.

The grounds for this decision was based on the mother’s physical abuse or risk of abuse towards her children, and the serious risk of neglect related to her drug addiction. [ 6 ] Since then, the mother made some serious changes in her life. On November 14, 2014, the mother involved herself in a detox program in Miramichi (NB). She has been sober since, and she participates in several follow ups. Starting on April 7, 2015, she put herself through voluntary drug testing weekly, it all came back negative.

The mother was sentenced for charges of assault against her two older children. [ 7 ] Beginning in February 2015, the mother has had regular supervised visits with her child. In March 2015, the child gradually integrated the foster home, that is to say, her grand-parents. During that time, the mother is present and spends time with the child. She’s the one who prepares the child for her bedtime, and she does this routine every day. Later on, the mother even started to bring the child

to daycare to help the grandparents. [ 8 ] The child also has visits at his mother’s where spot checks are done to verify how it is going, and everything seemed fine. Afterwards, the mother discusses with the worker about how it went. In June 2015, the child started sleepovers at his mother’s house with spot check. It was noticed that everything was going well during the child visits. The mother collaborates with the services, but she still needs services because she is still fragile.

She also benefits from the support her parents who, in fact, are the ones who act as foster family and from a few friends in the community. [ 9 ] An assessment of parental capacities of the mother was done and clearly the mother cares for her child. Basically, it was noticed that parental capacities are influenced by her drug addiction, but she put herself in action very quickly to take care of her problem and seek a therapy to address it. Subsequently, she continues her follow up, and she intends to do so as long as deemed necessary.

The mother made a lot of efforts to improve her condition and conduct, of course she remains vulnerable, but her relationship with the child is adequate and secure. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, the petition is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the petition for revision and extension of order; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 13 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 25, 2015; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother until August 31, 2016; [ 15 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother pursues her psychological follow-up, for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother pursues her addiction counselling, for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother benefit from a parental skills counselling to avoid any use of physical violence towards her child; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures suggested by the DYP; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the contacts between father/child be determined following an agreement between all parties and supervised for the period deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until August 31, 2016; [ 21 ] 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 Lynn-Ann Smith for the petitioner Me Mathieu Racine for the child Me Hugo Caissy for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: August 5, 2015 Written judgment filed on August 21, 2015