2020 QCCQ 9778, 2020 QCCQ 9778

Protection de la jeunesse — 207753 2020 QCCQ 9778 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 105-41-000486-184 DATE: October 21, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X born on [...], 2012 Child and A and B 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on April 27, 2020, in order for the child to remain in a rehabilitation centre. At the hearing, only the mother is present. She is duly assisted by her lawyer as well as the child.

Even, if the mother denies certain facts alleged in the application, she agrees with the recommendations of the DYP. [ 2 ] In the last measures ordered, the 8-year-old child is entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, because of significant behavioural problems. He demonstrated inappropriate sexual conduct, physical violence as well as verbal violence. He shows such behaviour when he is angry, jealous or when he is refused of something. For these reasons, among others, he must remain entrusted to a rehabilitation unit in order to develop more abilities and skills before considering being placed in a foster family.

However, this resource has already been chosen. Despite, this situation has improved, but less than expected. He receives not as much disciplinary action and is better able to express his emotions. Nevertheless, he still displays unsuitable sexual behaviour, even recently. [ 3 ] The mother and her spouse see the child twice a month, one visit in City A and one in the area. Supervised visits go well and are positive, but they have a hard time to discipline the child. Lately, the child has had sleepovers at his grandmother with his brothers.

His half-sister refuses any contact with her mother and stepfather. [ 4 ] The latter are not pleased with the terms of contact. It was explained to them that they must mobilize more regarding their personal issues and to understand the responsibility’s binding on them. Sadly, due to the pandemic Covid-19, these contacts were suspended. They could communicate through “Zoom” but the child reacts to these contacts. Afterwards, he becomes disorganized or more restless.

Sometimes, the DYP must reframe the mother as to the subjects of discussion approached with her son, considering that some of them are inadequate. [ 5 ] Currently, for the mother and her spouse, the situation is more stable. Their environment is secure and clean. They are not always collaborative nor transparent with the DYP. Since January 2020, some improvements are noticeable. Although the parents still show quick reactions sometimes or are disrespectful to the DYP when they disagree with their decision. Afterwards, the mother apologizes for her conduct.

On this aspect, the Court had a demonstration of it, during the hearing, for a few moments, we can observe the way the mother reacts when dissatisfied with the course of the hearing or to the comments made. Even in a court room, there is no restraint and a lack of respect.

[ 6 ] The mother and her spouse deny using drugs other than marijuana as well as conjugal violence or physical abuse on the children. They both do not acknowledge that their past disorganization could affect the child nor do they recognize their responsibility in this whole situation. Still, the mother and his spouse have to mobilize themselves concerning their personal issues such as managing their emotions, anger and impulsivity. Some steps were made by them to that matter. [ 7 ] The stepfather begins a follow-up with [Center A], which he pursues to this day.

He is motivated to continue and admits during meetings that he has difficulty managing his emotions, but he is open to solving his problems. For the mother, she is waiting for services, but met with her doctor to obtain medication for her anxiety. Certainly, they seem to take the necessary measures to resolve their problems, but on the other hand, they do not seem to recognize these difficulties. Besides, we must ensure that these services will be maintained through time. [ 8 ] Indeed, the process and the follow-ups initiated by the mother, and the stepfather are still recent.

At the moment, the situation remains too fragile to consider returning the child to the mother. They must continue to work on providing the child with a structured environment with clear rules, consequences and to work on their ability to identify the child’s need. Consequently, they can intervene in the most effective way. Regarding the father, he is absent and not involved in the child’s life. [ 9 ] The child still requires a structured and secured environment considering his problems. At this time, the maternal environment could not provide such a place.

The rehabilitation centre can offer him services crucial for his specific needs. It is essential that he continues to work on his issues in order to manage them more adequately and to develop more skills, so that he can ideally integrate progressively a foster family. [ 10 ] The evidence adduces demonstrates that the security and development of the child are still in danger. Considering the admissions, the proof as well as the consents, the amended measures suggested by the DYP appear to be in the child’s best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 13 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on April 27, 2020; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre designated by, the DYP, until July 31, 2021; [ 15 ] AUTHORIZES that the child benefit from outings of less than 15 consecutive days in a foster family, if the situation allows it; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child maintain his interpersonal relationship with his siblings; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined between the parties and that they be supervised, as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and Mr.

C be determined between the parties and that they be supervised, as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child receives the healthcare and social services required by his condition; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother avoid exposing the child to any kind of violence; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seeks help in relation to her personal difficulties, notably a follow-up in psychology, psychiatry and drug addiction as long as deemed necessary by the professionals involved; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provides aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until July 31, 2021; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the judgment; [ 24 ] ORDERS the parties to conform themselves to the present order. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant

Me Alexis Deschênes for the child Me Ariane Cayer for the mother Mr. B (absent) the father Date of hearing: October 7, 2020