2015 QCCQ 19162, 2015 QCCQ 19162

Protection de la jeunesse — 156874 2015 QCCQ 19162 QUEBEC COURT « Youth Court Division »

CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] N° : 505-41-007875-141 DATE : August 10, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : THE HONORABLE LYNE MORIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker Duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A , Petitioner -and- X , born on [...], 2012 Child-Respondent and- A Mother-Respondent -and- B Father-Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMEN T Section 95(1) of the Youth Protection Act ______________________________________________________________________ JM2505 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A .] [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) presents a Motion for Revision of a Court decision rendered on February 11 th , 2015. [ 2 ] At that date, the Court ordered that the child be entrusted to her maternal grandmother, Mrs. C for a period of six (6) months.

The Court also ordered that the contacts between the child and her parents be upon agreement of all parties and in the presence of a third person authorised by the Director, for the same period. [ 3 ] In the support of the procedure, the Director asks that the child remain under the care of her maternal grandparents for a period of one (1) year and that the contacts between the parents and the child be supervised for the same period. [ 4 ] The parents and the attorney for the child agree to the measures sought.

However, the mother eventually would like to have unsupervised contacts at home. [ 5 ] The Youth Protection services have followed the family since the child was about five months old. [ 6 ] The situation of the parents has not improved positively since the last Court order. There is still domestic violence between the parents and they have not taken any measures to resolve these issues. [ 7 ] The mother and father are emotionally dependent on each other and they are caught in a cycle of violence. [ 8 ] The visits between the child and the parents were, at first, scheduled twice a week.

One visit was taking place at the parent’s

apartment and the other at the Youth Protection office. [ 9 ] The parents missed some visits at the office. On the few occasions that the father was present, the parents would end up in an argument before the end of the two hour visit.

The parents do not agree on the rules and on how to raise the child. [ 10 ] During the visits at home, the educator observes : • The child does what she wants; • The lack of space makes it difficult for the child to have plenty of toys at her disposal; • The mother tends to put the blame on her cotenant and on the father for her difficulties; • The mother does not use the help offered; • The mother can raise her voice or even yell at the child when she does not answer immediately or simply refuses to answer; • The mother shows a careless attitude, saying she is tired and exhausted; • The condition of the apartment has not changed and there is no routine for the child. [ 11 ] Before May 2015, at some occasion, the mother claims that during the visit at the office, the father would be psychologically and verbally violent with her. [ 12 ] On May 14 th , the mother came to the visit alone and asked the Youth Protection worker if she could go to a shelter.

She said that the day before, the father had hit her on her head and her arms. The social worker witnessed the bruises on her arms. [ 13 ] A police complaint was filed and the mother went to a shelter for a couple of days. After, she went to an apartment with her brother and to her sister’s home. On July 1 st , she rented an apartment in Town A, however, at the beginning of August, she moved into the father’s apartment.

She does not have the financial capacity to pay her rent. [ 14 ] The parents live together in an apartment with the paternal grandmother even though there is a prohibition of contact between them ordered by the Criminal Court. [ 15 ] Since May, the contacts between the child and the parents have been scheduled separately. The mother has the opportunity to see her daughter twice a week and the father once a week. [ 16 ] Since May, the father only came to one visit to see her daughter. At first, he stated that he would wait for the criminal case in September and then he explained that he had no transportation.

The father is not able to take public transport because of his medical condition. [ 17 ] In June, the mother was visiting her daughter at the maternal grandmother’s house. In the first week, there was an argument between the two of them and, in front of the child, the mother pushed the grandmother. Since that event, the visits have been held in the Youth Protection office. The mother has missed some visits. [ 18 ] During the visits at the office, the mother often looks depressed. She will look at the clock and seems less available for her daughter.

The ‘’coaching’’ with the mother must be done over and over. [ 19 ] The parents are not currently receiving any individual help or couple therapy sessions. Since March 2015, they have been on a waiting list at the CLSC. Because of the instability of the mother, the request needs to be made again. [ 20 ] The father has difficulty getting more involved in his daughter’s situation because he feels betrayed by the mother since she pressed charges against him. [ 21 ] The mother has announced that she is pregnant.

She received a medical follow-up for her pregnancy, but she needs to receive medical services for her medical condition (spina bifida). She has difficulty to walk and she believes she would need a wheel chair in the near future. [ 22 ] Concerning her mental health, the mother is still contesting her Bipolar disorder diagnosis and she does not take any medication for her condition. However, the mother recognizes that during the visits with her daughter, she is regularly in tears and in distress. [ 23 ] The child, for her part, is developing adequately.

She has a significant bond with both parents and relies on them when in need. [ 24 ] She is attending a daycare following the recommendations of Carrefour socio-medical. [ 25 ] The child appreciates the visits with her parents and reacts negatively when the parents do not show up. [ 26 ] The maternal grandparents are exhausted by the instability of the mother. The grandparents have been evaluated and are now accredited as a foster family of proximity. For now, the maternal grandparents’ house is the best environment for the child.

They provide her stability. [ 27 ] The Court considers that the situation of the parents remains the same as that in February 2015: separation, violence, moving, instability, lack of collaboration and transparency. The parents did not work on their difficulties. We are at the same point, six months later.

[ 28 ] The parents need to participate more actively in the intervention plan and address their issues. They have to make the decision if they want to be a couple and, if that is the case, they need help. The child cannot be exposed to regular conflicts. The situation must change. Both parents need individual help. [ 29 ] The parents are now living together without having resolved any problems. They put themselves in a precarious situation. [ 30 ] In a few months, the mother will give birth to another child while the situation of X and the Youth Protection services has not been resolved.

The situation is not reassuring. [ 31 ] The contacts between the parents and the child will occur once a week for one hour under the supervision of a third person. The parents will have to confirm their presence at those visits.

X is missing her parents and she has the right to have parents mentally and physically available for her. [ 32 ] After having received the admissions, taken the reports produced and the testimonies heard into consideration, the Court is satisfied that the proof has been made on all the allegations of the declaration. [ 33 ] FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS the present motion; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are still in danger; [ 36 ] REVISES the Court order rendered on February 11 th , 2015, in the present file; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her maternal grandparents; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the parents report themselves to the Director of Youth Protection on a regular basis; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family for a period of one (1) year; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents of the child take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child attend a daycare establishment; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and her parents be upon agreement between the parties and supervised by a third party designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment to intervene; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of one (1) year; [ 45 ] THE WHOLE without cost. __________________________________ Lyne Morin , J.C.Q.

Me Véronique Crête Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Hélène Robitaille Attorney for the child Me Luc A. Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Patrick Cormier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 10, 2015