2018 QCCQ 13843, 2018 QCCQ 13843

Protection de la jeunesse — 184244 2018 QCCQ 13843 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] “Youth Division” N° : 525-41-031806-169 DATE : April 20, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2007 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 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 April 20, 2018. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered on April 26, 2017. [ 3 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child remain entrusted to the mother and that support measures be ordered for a period of one year. [ 4 ] The parents and the child’s attorney are in agreement with the proposed plan.

Question in litigation [ 5 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting his/her rights? Context and Analysis [ 6 ] The family has received continued support from the youth protection worker and from an educator, Mr. C. Mr. C will continue his involvement but more specifically for the child’s half-sibling. [ 7 ] Mr. B began to exercise regular visits with his children. [ 8 ] X is attending the A’s Program at A school. He is doing generally well but was suspended on two occasions. [ 9 ] X began music therapy at the Douglas Hospital.

This service is not offered anymore. [ 10 ] The mother continues to have difficulties in meeting the children’s emotional and psychological needs. [ 11 ] On November 24, 2017, the mother underwent gastric surgery. She assured the youth protection worker that family support was put in place. This support included Mr. B’s assistance however the youth protection worker was told he was not residing in the family

home. [ 12 ] On January 24, 2018, the youth protection worker discovered that Mr. B resided in the family home four nights per week to support mother’s recovery. [ 13 ] There has been no reported incidents of conjugal violence between Mr. B and the mother.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still in danger; [ 16 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on April 26, 2017; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that the child is not exposed to conjugal violence; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the family; [ 20 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 21 ] 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.

Written and signed on April 30, 2018 /cd Mtre Christine Waldvogel Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Sylvie Piriou Counsel for the child Mtre Judith Shapiro-Knight Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: April 20, 2018