2017 QCCQ 18658, 2017 QCCQ 18658

Protection de la jeunesse — 179000 2017 QCCQ 18658 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-027333-137 DATE : March 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2003 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on February 12, 2016, entrusting the adolescent to the care of the foster family of his paternal grandparents with various corrective measures for a year. [ 2 ] Given the adolescent’s need for stability and continuity of care, the Director is proposing to extend the measure until the adolescent’s age of majority. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that there has been no evolution regarding the situation with the father.

Essentially, he maintains contact with his son on an irregular basis and continues to delegate his parental responsibilities to the grandparents. [ 4 ] As for the mother, the Director has been unable to contact her since the prior judgment and is currently unaware of her whereabouts. All attempts to serve her with the motion for extension have failed. She has not attempted to contact the Director in any way and she has had no contact with the adolescent. [ 5 ] The father admits the allegations and consents to the measures as proposed. [ 6 ] Through his lawyer, the adolescent also agrees with the recommendation.

The evidence [ 7 ] Overall, the adolescent has been doing relatively well. Two areas of concern have been identified, namely, his school grades and excessive video gaming. [ 8 ] Academically, the adolescent has been struggling with organizational difficulties such as forgotten agendas and incomplete homework. Although extra help was provided through the school, he failed the previous academic year. [ 9 ] Since then, the adolescent has been placed on a tracer. Although some improvement has been noted regarding his grades, he remains at risk of failing certain core courses.

The grandparents are in regular communication with the administration in order to avail themselves of whatever services are accessible through the school. Tutoring is in the process of being organized. [ 10 ] At home, the grandparents express concerns that the adolescent spends too much time on videogames. The services of an educator have been introduced into the home in order to work on that aspect.

[ 11 ] Over the past year, the father has been inconsistent in maintaining contact with his son although recently, he has proven to be somewhat more reliable. Nevertheless, he fails to assume any veritable parental responsibility despite having ample opportunity to do so. [ 12 ] The adolescent expresses being content remaining with his grandparents although he would have preferred to have lived with his father if the situation had allowed for it. Under the circumstances, he understands and accepts the need for a long-term placement.

Conclusion [ 13 ] The father has failed to invest in his parental role despite his family’s encouragement as well as that of the social worker. Although the adolescent’s needs are well taken care of by the grandparents who are completely committed to his well-being, the adolescent remains affected by what he perceives as a form of rejection by his father. [ 14 ] The Court agrees that the adolescent requires the long-term care and stability that can only be offered by the grandparents. However, this should not serve as an excuse for the father to further absolve himself of his responsibilities.

His son’s interest requires that he make sincere efforts to invest in and develop their relationship. [ 15 ] For this reason, the Court is of the opinion that the exercise of the mother’s parental authority should be granted to the father rather than to the grandparents. He is available and certainly capable of making decisions in his son’s interest.

The Court prefers to encourage his implication rather than support his tendency to delegate his responsibilities. [ 16 ] Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Director’s motion should be granted and the order extended until the adolescent’s age of majority. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent continue to be endangered for the reasons initially determined; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the adolescent to the foster family of C and D; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the adolescent and his mother be determined by the DYP, taking into account the adolescent’s wishes and with a degree of supervision if required; [ 22 ] WITHDRAWS from the mother the exercise of certain attributes of parental authority in regards to medical issues, travel and obtaining a passport and GRANTS this exercise to the father; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES the father to make the request for a passport without the mother’s authorization; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between the adolescent and his maternal relatives be determined by the DYP; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the adolescent and his family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] THE WHOLE until the majority of the adolescent.

SIGNED IN CITY A On April 5, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the adolescent Date of hearing: March 30, 2017 KO/lf