2017 QCCQ 16024, 2017 QCCQ 16024

Protection de la jeunesse — 176679 2017 QCCQ 16024 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-032833-170 DATE : September 18, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2009 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on September 18, 2017. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that there is a serious risk that the child be neglected. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remains entrusted to the foster family of Ms. C and that support measures be ordered until February 2, 2018. [ 4 ] Both parents are in agreement with the proposed measures. [ 5 ] The child’s attorney is also agreeing with the proposed plan.

Question in litigation [ 6 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his interest? Context and Analysis [ 7 ] On October 26, 2015, the parties signed an agreement on Voluntary Measures. Support was given to the parents in order for the child and his sister, Y, to remain in the family home. The parents were overwhelmed by the child’s difficult behaviours. It was also observed that the home environment was not always safe and secure for the child. [ 8 ] The children were witness to verbal arguments between the parents. The home was dirty.

At times, the father was leaving the children unsupervised while he was smoking a cigarette on the balcony. [ 9 ] In 2015, the father’s parenting capacity was assessed by Dre Catherine Cloutier. At the time, her prognostic was reserved regarding the father’s capacity to use intervention and be assisted in a way that would contribute to long-term gains. [ 10 ] On February 2, 2016, marks were observed on the child. The child informed the youth protection worker that the mother pushed

him. The next day, the mother grabbed the child’s face in order to get his attention. This led to bruising on the child. The same day, the youth protection worker was informed by the police that the father was with the child’s sister at McDonald’s and that he fell asleep (sugar crash), leaving the child’s sister unattended. [ 11 ] At the September 18, 2017 hearing, the mother testified that she did not push the child in 2016. She only blocked him. She also reported that the child had bruises when he came back from school.

The father and the mother determined, at the time, that she should report that she had pushed and grabbed the child, even if this was not the case. This is not what transpired from the April 25, 2017 Court hearing regarding the file of the child’s sister, Y. [ 12 ] Following these event, on February 4, 2016, new Voluntary Measures were signed. The child was placed with his aunt, Ms.

C. [ 13 ] On March 4, 2016, following the conclusion of a new Voluntary Measures Agreement, the child’s entrustment to his aunt was extended for a period of nine months, with a possible reintegration home after six months if the situation allowed. [ 14 ] In November 2016, the parents separated and the father moved into his own apartment in Ville Saint-Laurent, next door to Ms. C and the child. [ 15 ] In 2016, the father was seen by a psychiatrist in relation to his anxiety.

A diagnostic of non-specified anxious trouble was made. [ 16 ] On December 9, 2016, the parties signed another Voluntary Measures Agreement specifying that the child would remain entrusted, for ten months, in the care of Ms. C’s foster family. The parties convened that a family reintegration would start after eight months if the situation allowed. [ 17 ] Since the children’s first placement, the father showed great motivation to follow through on the recommendations made by the Director. [ 18 ] The father joined an anger management course and attended two parenting courses.

He has been medically followed and started taking medication for his anxiety. He collaborated with weekly services from an educator. [ 19 ] The father took an active role in the child’s daily routine: picking him up from the bus after school and doing homework under the supervision of Ms. C, who observed that the child was starting to listen to his father better than before. [ 20 ] Despite his best efforts, his ability to consistently care for the child remain problematic.

On the days that the child slept at his father, it was observed that he would not always have an appropriate lunch and that he would come to school with an odor. On a few occasions, the father was also late in picking up the child from the bus. [ 21 ] On April 26, 2017, the day following Y’s Court hearing, the father attempted to commit suicide by ingesting pills. He was brought to the hospital, where he remained until May 5, 2017.

He is now receiving support from the Jewish General Hospital and from a psychologist at his CLSC. [ 22 ] Since April 26, 2017, the visits between the child and the father have been supervised by Ms. C. [ 23 ] The mother has shown resistance had has not collaborated fully with the youth protection worker. She still struggles with hoarding issues, anger and implementing proper structure for the child and his sister.

She believes that the child will purposely say things to get her angry and that he is not appreciative of anything. [ 24 ] The mother has not yet taken all the necessary steps to address her mental health issues. She receives the support from an educator in setting limits for the child. She also started counseling with the family pastor regarding co-parenting. [ 25 ] Since February 4, 2016, the child has been thriving in the foster family of Ms. C. She’s been providing him with a stable and safe environment, while ensuring that the child has regular and positive contacts with his parents.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS the application; [ 27 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is endangered (

section 38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2

o) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 28 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the foster family of Ms.

C; [ 29 ] AUTHORIZES the progressive reintegration of the child in his father’s care if the situation allow; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modalities of contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director and that they be encouraged; [ 31 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father continue to take his medication for anxiety and continue to meet with his psychologist for as long as deemed necessary; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure their respective home environments are clean, safe and secure for visits with the child; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents not expose their child to any physical and verbal violence; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family;

[ 35 ] THE WHOLE until February 2, 2018; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q. Signed on October 6, 2017 /cd Mtre Myriam DeBlois Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Alec Fafard Counsel for the child Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 18, 2017