2015 QCCQ 12120, 2015 QCCQ 12120

Protection de la jeunesse — 153359 2015 QCCQ 12120 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004805-159 760-41-004804-152 DATE: July 27, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2011 Y , born on […], 2012 Children DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 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 petitions for the revision and extension of a court decision rendered on February 9, 2015 in the situation of the siblings X and Y, born respectively on […], 2011 and […], 2012. [ 2 ] In virtue of the last judgment, the Court determines that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reason of physical and educational neglect.

As protective measures, the Court orders the application of protective measures for 9 months while maintaining the children with their mother and providing for the structure and supervision of their contacts with their father. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that substantial changes in the children’s situation justifies that the Court revise and extend the protective measures, namely to entrust them to foster care for 6 months and further order that the supervision of the mother’s access. [ 4 ] After hearing evidence to the effect that the mother is of unknown address and refuses to cooperate with the intervention, the Court dispenses services and proceeds in her absence. [ 5 ] The father consigns his admissions and consents to the conclusions sought by the Director. [ 6 ] The attorney for the children, acting under a legal mandate, indicates being in agreement with the orientation proposed. [ 7 ] Analysis and decision [ 8 ] Following the last judgment, the children remain with their mother. [ 9 ] Despite protective services being put in place, the elements of neglect persist.

The mother makes some progress in the implementation of structure, the cleanliness of the living environment and her assiduity to the services put in place to attend to X’s delays.

Notwithstanding, she remains rapidly overwhelmed by her responsibilities, which hinder her efforts and availability to respond to her children’s needs. [ 10 ] In time, the mother shows more resistance to the interventions of the Director of Youth Protection and ceases her participation in the services put in place, namely with through the CSSS. [ 11 ] In early May, the Director evaluates information to the effect that the children were left unsupervised outside the family home on two occasions.

The mother admits that on one occasion she falls asleep watching a movie and that when she wakes up, the children have left the apartment, to be found in a neighborhood park. She further admits that the children have a tendency of trying to sneak out of the apartment. [ 12 ] At this same occasion, the caseworker observes that the apartment is anew cluttered, dirty and generally unattended. There is no lock on the entrance door.

As to the children, their hygiene and clothing are wanting. [ 13 ] In view of this situation, the mother agrees to the caseworker’s suggestion to take a break and entrust her children to someone of her entourage. For one week, the children remain with a friend, but are displaced in a foster home when this person advises not being able to attend to them on a more long term basis. [ 14 ] Initially, the sisters are in the same foster family. They exhibit a constant need for structure and supervision. They have little routine and present behavioural issues, notably violent tantrums.

It is eventually decided to orient the children to distinct foster families in order to favour their development. Both children are now adapting positively in their respective foster families. [ 15 ] Despite the removal of the children, the mother doesn’t mobilize herself to attend to cleaning and repairing the home environment. She instead blames the situation on outside factors and states having the intention to move in order to resolve the situation. [ 16 ] Progressively, the mother ceases her cooperation.

As of the date of the hearing, the Director has neither her new coordinates nor information as to her current circumstances. An educator is assigned to accompany the family during the supervised visits, but the mother chooses to not present herself. [ 17 ] Since the last judgment, the father’s implication shows an overall improvement. He commences a follow-up with Centre jeunesse A, in view of re-establishing his contacts and maintains an effective cooperation, although he can be impulsive and erratic during meetings.

It is still necessary to refocus him on his children instead of his conflictual relationship with the mother. [ 18 ] In view of this positive evolution, the Director expects to initiate a calendar of supervised contacts between the father and the children, in a short delay. [ 19 ] At her specific request, the Court hears the testimony of the children’s maternal grandmother, Ms C. She is unaware of her daughter’s whereabouts actually nor of her present situation.

Since the children’s removal from the mother’s care, she has repeatedly communicated with the caseworker seeking contacts. [ 20 ] The grandmother petitions to be able to see the children, with whom she testifies having a close and significant relationship. She states that while the children were in their mother’s care, she saw them at least twice a month, sometimes for extended periods. [ 21 ] The grandmother wishes to be able to maintain her contacts with the children and stipulates understanding the requirement to

respect any orders providing for the structuring of her daughter’s contacts. [ 22 ] Both the father and the Director of Youth Protection agree to these contacts, although the caseworker considers it prudent to provide some initial contacts in his presence to ensure that the children are comfortable and receptive. The father adds that he wishes that the grandmother not speak ill of him in front of the children, testifying that this has been an issue in the past. [ 23 ] After considering the evidence, the Court determines that the children’s best interests require a revision of the protective measures.

Specifically, both parents are struggling with personal issues which preclude their being able to assume the needs of their children. [ 24 ] As to the mother, her lack of involvement since the children’s removal from her care is troubling. Although the goal of the intervention is the return of the children in their home environment, the mother’s seeming inability or unwillingness to participate in the required measures, gives way to a somber prognosis.

For these reasons, the Court agrees that supervised contacts are actually in the children’s best interests, inasmuch that it is not possible to discern the mother’s situation nor motivation to participate in the intervention. [ 25 ] The father’s efforts to resume his parental role are encouraging.

The next period of measures will permit to continue this evolution towards the children having meaningful and beneficial contacts with him. [ 26 ] As to the contacts between the children and their maternal grandmother, the Court is convinced that the grandmother’s motivations are sincere and that she is a significant person in their lives. It is therefore in their best interests that this bond be encouraged by permitting access rights, of which the frequency and modalities are left to the determination of the parties.

Considering the father’s evidence, the Court further orders that these contacts be conditional to the grandmother engaging herself to not denigrate the parents in the children’s presence. [ 27 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the amended motions; [ 29 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 30 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on February 9, 2015;; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the foster family coordinates remain confidential to the father; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their father be determined following mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection ; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and their mother be determined following mutual agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Director of youth protection and be conditional to three previous meeting with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 35 ] PERMITS the withdrawal of the supervision, as to the contacts with each of the parents, following mutual agreement between the parties; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures designed to put an end to the situation in which the security or the development of the children are in danger; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply to themselves or the children to put an end to the situation which compromise their security or their development; [ 38 ] PERMITS AND ENCOURAGES the contacts between the children and their maternal grandmother, to be determined following mutual agreement between the grandmother and the Director of Youth Protection as to their frequency and modalities; [ 39 ] ORDERS that these visits be conditional to the grandmother not denigrating the parents in the presence of the children, discussing the protective measures with them nor allowing a third person to do so; [ 40 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family; [ 41 ] ALL of these measures for a period of 6 months; [ 42 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of youth protection A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Annie Girard

Attorney for the children Date of hearing: July 27, 2015