2012 QCCQ 19311, 2012 QCCQ 19311

Protection de la jeunesse — 128446 2012 QCCQ 19311 COURT OF QUEBEC Canada PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004248-129 DATE: November 21, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born : […], 2004 Child DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B JC0B11 Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for protection concerning the minor child X, born on […], 2004. [ 2 ] The motion alleges that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of neglect on the educative plan as well as a serious risk of neglect in relation to the parents addiction.

The Director recommends the implementation of measures for a period of 9 months and more particularly, that the child reside with his father and that the mother's contacts be following mutual agreement and under supervision. [ 3 ] The parties consign their admissions to the Court record.

The mother doesn't contest the measures, whereas the father and the child consent to these. [ 4 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 5 ] The Director of Youth Protection initially evaluates the situation of the child in early 2011. [ 6 ] The parents separate when X is approximately 18 months old and he resides with his mother and her partner, Mr. C. The father exercises regular access to his son in virtue of a Superior Court judgment. [ 7 ] Both parents have a strong bond with their son. [ 8 ] The parents communication is difficult and mutual respect evades them.

They mutually focus on the other's difficulties and shortcomings. [ 9 ] Both parents present complex personal histories in which dependency and instability are common elements. [ 10 ] On November 29, 2010, the mother is arrested for drunk driving, while the child is in the vehicle. She denies a dependency problem, judging her consumption as normal. [ 11 ] X mentions that his mother drinks beer and becomes ''crazy'' when this happens. [ 12 ] X is behind in school, having repeated kindergarten. He is regularly unprepared for school and his homework not done. The father doesn't participate in his child's education.

For her part, the mother is not constant in her relationship with the school authorities, resulting in the school's demands not always being respected. [ 13 ] On August 8, 2011, the parents sign an agreement on voluntary measures for a term of 9 months.

The undertake to work towards the following objectives: • Not consume alcohol excessively in the presence of the child; • The mother continue to participate in her psychological follow-up; • The mother stimulate her child in a positive and effective way; • The parents abstain from conflict in the presence of their child; • The parents continue their regular communication with the school; [ 14 ] Initially, the mother cooperates with the intervention, although she resists recognizing the reasons justifying such. She makes no efforts to resolve her alcohol problem as she affirms no longer consuming abusively.

She pursues a psychological follow-up until October. More attention is given to X's schooling. [ 15 ] In April 2012, police authorities intervene at the mother's domicile for a fight between the couple. The mother is intoxicated and threatens her partner with a knife. The mother leaves the domicile with her son. During a subsequent meeting with the worker, she minimizes the incident and declares being separated. The relationship renews a few days later. [ 16 ] Another crisis occurs in the couple shortly thereafter and a definitive separation ensues.

The mother undertakes follow-ups with desintoxication center A and the CLSC. [ 17 ] X increasingly reacts to the instability in his life. He describes being witness to conflicts in both his milieus. At school, he fails his first grade. A psychological evaluation submits the hypothesis that his learning difficulties are a result of the difficulties at home. [ 18 ] On September 10, 2012, the child remains with his father following a weekend visit, as the mother is of unknown whereabouts and would have left him with friends as of the preceding Thursday.

The father attempts to communicate with the mother during the weekend, without success. X indicates being fearful. [ 19 ] When the worker communicates with the mother, it is impossible to receive any information, as she is extremely upset and verbally aggressive.

[ 20 ] The Director advises the mother of its intention to petition the Court to revise the provisional measures and entrust the child to his father. The mother reacts by advising the worker that Mr. B is not X's biological father and that she has the intention to advise her son of such. [ 21 ] Contrary to advice, the mother informs X of this fact the next day at the Courthouse, while awaiting the hearing on provisional measures. The child reacts with confusion and sadness. [ 22 ] The mother maintains her actions are appropriate, as it is necessary that her son know the truth to protect him.

Her decision to advise her son of his lineage, without preparation, demonstrates to which point she is emotionally compromised and unable to adequately judge the impact of her actions. Furthermore, her attempt to sabotage the Court proceedings and her son's relationship with his father, confirm the necessity to revise the provisional measures. The Court entrusts X to his father and orders contacts with his mother under supervision. [ 23 ] X adjusts well to his father's environment and to his new school. The visits with his mother are generally positive.

X appreciates the frequency of the visits and wants supervision to continue. [ 24 ] The mother resumes her relationship with Mr. C. [ 25 ] The mother's history demonstrates a pattern of relationships that maintain her in the periphery of addiction and violence.

Her impulsivity creates a myriad of personal difficulties and situations to which her son is not equipped to understand, nor deal with. [ 26 ] The best interests of the child dictate that he evolve in a milieu which is exempt of violence and addiction, to permit him to be fully available to develop positively in all spheres of his life. [ 27 ] A positive evolution of the situation requires that the mother fully engage herself in the intervention and the follow-ups designed to help her overcome the personal difficulties which negatively impact the security and the development of her son. [ 28 ] The father also has efforts to offer towards securing a more viable means of communication with the mother. [ 29 ] The Court determines that the security and the development of the child are in danger for the reasons brought forth by the Director of Youth Protection.

The Court further determines that measures proposed in are appropriate and in the best interests of the child. [ 30 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 31 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 32 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child are in danger; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the child to his father; [ 34 ] AUTHORIZES the contacts between the child and his mother be upon agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third party designated by the Youth Director; [ 35 ] PERMITS that supervision be withdrawn following mutual agreement between the parties and in respect of the evolution of the situation; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counseling or assistance to the child and his parents for a period of nine months; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the parents not denigrate each other in the presence of the child, nor permit that a third party do so; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the child and his parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the mother not put the child in contact with Mr. C; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother participate in a follow-ups concerning her personal situation and regarding her drinking problem; [ 41 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q. Me Caterine Caron Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother

Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: November 21, 2012