2018 QCCQ 20663, 2018 QCCQ 20663

Protection de la jeunesse — 1811457 2018 QCCQ 20663 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] Youth Division No: 525-41-026426-122 DATE : October 3, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born […], 2011 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother (deceased) ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] Within the context of a joint hearing, the Director of Youth Protection, (the Director), is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on July 27, 2017, entrusting Y and X to the care of a foster family along with other corrective measures for a year. [ 2 ] The applicant alleges that the children are flourishing in their current environment where they have developed a significant bond with the foster mother.

Despite the father’s improved consistency regarding visits with the children, the Director submits that his situation remains largely unchanged. [ 3 ] Considering the expiration of the delays provided for at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act, the Director is asking the court to extend the order until the children’s respective age of majority. [ 4 ] The father denies the allegations that question his ability to parent the children. He submits that he is willing and able to care for his children and he asks that they be progressively returned to his care over the next few months.

He further contests the need for continued supervision of visits with his children, something the Director seeks to maintain. [ 5 ] The attorney representing the children supports the Director’s position with respect to the extension of placement. The attorney argues that the children require stability and security which they have found in their current environment. Moreover, he considers that the father has not sufficiently invested his parental role over the past year, making his proposal to assume the care of his children unlikely to serve their interests.

On the other hand, he submits that supervision of visits with the children is no longer required nor justified. The Situation [ 6 ] Since the prior judgment, the father remains in a relationship with his second wife and their young daughter. The couple has since had another child. They reside in a subsidized two bedroom home that is well-maintained. Neither one is employed at this time. [ 7 ] Until recently, the father continued his consultation with [social worker 1] at the CLSC.

Both agree that her services are no longer required. [ 8 ] The father has been acquitted of the criminal charges originally laid against him in relation to his other son. No other charges are outstanding. (

i) Visits with the children : [ 9 ] The father has markedly improved consistency regarding his visits with the children. These occur every two weeks for a period

of two hours. While there were a few questionable cancellations, overall, he has respected the schedule. It should be noted that on two occasions, the children were already on route to the visit when it was cancelled. [ 10 ] The children have met both their stepmother and half-siblings. The response has been relatively positive and no issues have been observed. [ 11 ] The visits with the father have remained supervised, largely as a result of events that occurred prior to the last court order and as detailed in the prior judgment.

Since then, any other justifications submitted by the social worker to support maintaining supervision are based on speculation and conjecture. The concerns described by the social worker during her testimony call for conclusions that find no factual basis in the evidence and detailing them here would serve no purpose. [ 12 ] What the evidence does establish, however, is that the father behaves appropriately with the children who enjoy the time that they spend with him. The evidence also establishes that the father has recently requested from the social worker more time with the children, without supervision.

While the social worker is prepared to consider extending visits, she maintains her request for supervision for at least a six month period. [ 13 ] On this issue, the court is of the opinion that supervision no longer serves any purpose. The evidence fails to reveal any justification for such a position. On the contrary, the children are benefitting from contact with their father and have gradually developed a positive relationship with him. It should also be noted that no intervention during visits has been required despite the constant presence of an educator.

The father has remained appropriate throughout. [ 14 ] For these same reasons, the father has also demonstrated that an increase in the time allotted for the visits merits serious consideration. (ii) Entrustment of the children : [ 15 ] Although the father has demonstrated improvement related to visits with the children, there has been little change regarding his ability to effectively parent them. [ 16 ] Despite being aware of Y’s learning difficulties, his involvement in his son’s academic progression is practically non-existent.

The Court was surprised to learn that he was unable to name the school attended by his children. Nor has he sought to attend any parent- teacher interviews. [ 17 ] The father has been granted unlimited telephone access to the children yet he has called them inconsistently and has not benefitted from this opportunity as one would expect. [ 18 ] The father’s testimony also demonstrates that there has been very little reflection as to how a reintegration would take place. His proposal to assume full-time care of the children in the short term is submitted without any concrete plan.

His testimony is to the effect that he simply needs to ask his building manager for a larger home and all will fall into place. Astonishingly, he is under the impression that there is no waiting list for larger homes in his subsidized housing development. [ 19 ] Although the court has no doubt that the father dearly loves his children, this vision is idealistic and short sighted. Furthermore, it fails to anticipate and to prepare for all the potential difficulties that his plan entails.

Keeping in mind the children’s difficult history, the father has not demonstrated a clear understanding of their needs. (iii) The children : [ 20 ] The evidence supports the Director’s position that the children have flourished in their current environment. X is doing exceptionally well both academically and socially. Like her brother, she has developed a strong and secure attachment to her foster mother. [ 21 ] Y continues to struggle academically but has shown consistent improvement. Socially, he has outgrown his timidity and interacts well with peers.

The foster mother has collaborated consistently with the school professionals to support the child’s progression. [ 22 ] Both children are followed by a pediatrician and there are no health concerns. For Y, however, a psycho educational assessment is recommended to clarify his needs and implement proper services. [ 23 ] Overall, the children’s emotional state has dramatically improved. They appear happy and secure. According to the social worker’s testimony, they have expressed the desire to remain permanently with their foster mother, C, who is committed to raising them on a long term basis.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 24 ] An analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the father’s proposition cannot be entertained. As sincere as the father may be in his desire to recover custody of his children, he has yet to demonstrate that his parental skills are adequate to assume such a responsibility. His proposal to have the children reintegrated to his home over the next few months lacks substance and fails to consider their needs. [ 25 ] The father’s current situation, raising two small children with his wife in a two-bedroom apartment, presents challenges that would be difficult to overcome.

Yet, the father fails to even acknowledge any potential difficulties, much less prepare for them. Of noteworthy concern is the fact that the children have yet to develop a relationship of substance with their stepmother. Although they have met and visited, she has not assumed a role of any significance in their regard. The addition of two children to this environment, without the assurance of proper preparation, is likely to produce instability and disarray.

[ 26 ] The children have greatly suffered in the past and are only now beginning to heal. Removing them from C’ care would have a detrimental effect on that healing process. They require continued care in a secure and stable environment upon which they have come to rely. [ 27 ] From the evidence, the Court concludes that the children’s best interests mandate that they permanently remain in their current environment, offering them stability and security.

They have developed a significant bond with their foster mother who is clearly committed to their well-being. [ 28 ] That being said, the Court recognizes that the children benefit from contact with their father and acknowledges that he has demonstrated much improvement to that effect. An evaluation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that visits should be increased. Moreover, supervision is no longer justified nor required. [ 29 ] The Court agrees with the attorney representing the children that the father can continue to play an important role in their lives despite their placement.

The court encourages him to take a more proactive approach to their education and development. [ 30 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 31 ] THE COURT : [ 32 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children continue to be in danger; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to the foster family of C; [ 35 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and their father be agreed upon by the parties, failing which, the Director shall determine the frequency, modality and duration of contact and ORDERS that they occur minimally once a week if the

schedule is consistently respected by the father, unless the parties agree otherwise; [ 36 ] PROHIBITS the father from discussing with the children any litigious issues related to the measures ordered by the court; [ 37 ] ORDERS that certain health services be provided to the children such as: therapeutic services as needed to address their traumatic experiences as well as a pediatric follow up and also, namely for Y : speech therapy, a psycho educational assessment, an individual education plan and educational support services; [ 38 ] PROHIBITS contact between the children and their maternal aunt, D; [ 39 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to exchange pertinent information with treating professionals working with the family; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 42 ] THE WHOLE until their respective age of majority.

SIGNED IN TOWN A On October 3, 2018 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q . Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the Director Me Richard Brunet Attorney for the children Me Aude Bastien Attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 11, 2018 KO/lf