2016 QCCQ 5139, 2016 QCCQ 5139

Protection de la jeunesse — 162943 2016 QCCQ 5139 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-028160-141 DATE : February 23, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2014 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Father B Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95, Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING : Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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 (Y.P.A. sections 11.2.2 and 135). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) is asking the Court to extend the order rendered on March 12, 2015 concerning the children X and Y, entrusting them to the foster home of their maternal grandfather, C. [ 2 ] The delays provided for at

section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act have expired. The Director submits that the situation of endangerment persists and consequently recommends that the order be extended until the age of majority for each child. [ 3 ] The parties admit the actual state of endangerment and agree to the nature of the proposed measures. The issue is the duration of the order to be rendered. [ 4 ] The parents are of the opinion that they have significantly progressed in the past year. They expect to be able to assume full- time care of their children in the foreseeable future.

They suggest an extension of one year, the time required to integrate the parental skills they currently lack. They also consider that they should be entitled to be alone with their children in the house, which is currently not the case. [ 5 ] The children’s lawyer argues that the parents’ situation falls within the exception provided for at

section 91.1 of the Act, specifically that they have yet to receive all the required services. She further argues that a shorter entrustment period is required in order to obtain the parents’ adherence. She is of the opinion that a one year period of entrustment is reasonable in the circumstances and in the children’s personal interest.

The context [ 6 ] The last judgment rendered by Judge Guy Lecompte summarized the situation as well as the issues in the following manner: [13] Les limites au niveau des capacités parentales de chacun des parents sont toujours présentes et font en sorte qu’ils sont incapables de s’occuper seuls des enfants et d’en assumer la garde à temps plein.

Le grand-père maternel, monsieur C, s’était offert à l’époque pour prendre charge du jeune Y, tout en acceptant que les parents demeurent chez lui, ce qui faisait en sorte que ceux-ci pouvaient être présents de façon quotidienne auprès de leur enfant et jouer leur rôle parental dans la mesure de leurs capacités. [23] Certains retards de développement ont été observés chez les enfants, en particulier chez Y au niveau de son langage, et il sera important de surveiller leur développement au cours des prochains mois.

[ 7 ] The purpose of the intervention that followed was to assist the parents in developing their parental skills, to ensure that the children received the stimulation and care required for proper development, and to provide support to the maternal grandfather. The evidence [ 8 ] Since the prior judgment, the parents continue to reside with the maternal grandfather, allowing them daily access to the children. (

i) The children [ 9 ] The children now attend daycare and they continue to thrive. The stimulation afforded in that setting has produced remarkable results in their development. [ 10 ] [Social Worker 1], an educator, has been providing in home services since July 2015. Her intervention focuses on the developmental stages of the two children. She teaches proper stimulation techniques to ensure that the children reach their developmental milestones.

The grandfather benefits from these teachings whereas the parents remain relatively passive. [ 11 ] At the start of her intervention, the children were behind in language and motor ability. As well, there were issues with behaviour, specifically tantrums and throwing objects. [ 12 ] More recently, both boys have not only progressed in their development, their behaviour has improved as well. Although the tantrums continue, they have lessened in both frequency and intensity.

The youth protection worker, [Social Worker 2], observes that the children are calmer, more settled and follow directives better. [ 13 ] Regarding their health, both boys benefit from a regular paediatric follow-up. Dental issues have been identified for Y and an intervention in planned in March. There is also concern regarding proper nutrition. Y is overweight and both boys are drawn towards highly processed foods with little nutritional value.

The grandfather is currently making efforts to introduce more fruits and vegetables into their diet. (ii) The parents [ 14 ] Various services have been offered to the parents for the purpose of developing their parental capacity. In November 2015, they began participating in the Head and Hands program on a fairly regular basis. This program is described as a support group for young parents. They offer group discussions and workshops pertaining to basic care for children.

The parents’ participation has been positive. [ 15 ] The CLSC offers relevant assistance within the framework of their program for the intellectually disabled. A worker is available to help with budgeting, preparation of meals, use of appliances and so forth. However, the parents have made little use of this service. It should be noted that the father remains on the waiting list for services from [Center A]. [ 16 ] In-home workshops have also been established for the teaching of proper emergency techniques in the case of a fire or medical event such as choking.

Simulations have taken place to test the parents’ reflexes. They have not yet successfully completed these workshops and their capacity to deal with such emergencies remains unproven. Consequently, they are prohibited from being alone with the children in the home. [ 17 ] On the other hand, the parents are currently permitted to leave the home unaccompanied with the children for the purpose of going to the park or to the restaurant.

These activities have been practiced and the parents have established their capacity to ensure the safety of the children in those circumstances. [ 18 ] Both parents testified that they hope to move out of the grandfather’s home within a year or two with their children. Analysis [ 19 ] The evidence as a whole reveals that the grandfather remains the main caregiver in the home. He has assumed responsibility for everything from the children’s medical appointments to household chores.

The parents are frequently passive and lack initiative regarding their parental responsibility. [ 20 ] Although they have participated in the social follow up as well as the Head and Hands program, they have not been able to develop the parental skills required to take care of the children. [ 21 ] The parents have demonstrated, at best, sporadic changes in their daily routine but have failed to maintain any consistency. For instance, they have taken the children to the park or the restaurant unaccompanied on very few occasions despite the opportunity to do so more frequently.

Also, their inability to actively participate in the household routine is another example. They appear satisfied to rely on the grandfather. [ 22 ] Both parents express the desire to move out with the children in the next year or two. However, they offer no structured or concrete plan to reach that objective. They appear to be unaware of the huge responsibility and commitment that such an intent requires. [ 23 ] Although there has been some progress, namely the consistent participation in Head and Hands, the overall situation remains the same.

Not only have the parents failed to develop the multiple skills required to care for their children despite the numerous services offered, there is no genuine possibility of any significant change in the foreseeable future. [ 24 ] The maternal grandfather is willing to assume long-term care of the children and has demonstrated his devotion to them on countless occasions. He has proven capable of caring for the children while maintaining the parents in the home. The parents therefore

have daily access to the children and the opportunity to care for them within the limits of their capacity. [ 25 ] The Director’s proposal offers a stable and viable long-term plan for the children by maintaining them in the care of a family member who has always played a significant role in their lives.

Access to their parents is also a considerable advantage for the children. [ 26 ] IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, [ 27 ] TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the security and development of the children were declared endangered on October 29, 2015 based on parental negligence; [ 28 ] CONSIDERING that the recommendations proposed by the Director are in the best interest of the children; [ 29 ] THE COURT: [ 30 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 31 ] ORDERS that both children be entrusted to the foster family chosen by A Centres, specifically the home of Mr.

C; [ 32 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents currently reside at the home, AUTHORIZES them to do so; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and their parents be determined by agreement by all parties failing which, they shall be determined by the DYP; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that services aimed at allowing unsupervised outings in the community between the parents and the children be provided on a regular basis and that such outing be encouraged; [ 35 ] RECOMMENDS that all services aimed at teaching the parents proper safety procedure within the home be provided on a regular basis; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the father and the mother report periodically to the DYP regarding any steps they take to improve upon their respective situations; [ 37 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the parents’ consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to exchange pertinent information with the professionals working with the children; [ 38 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 39 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection A Centres, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 40 ] THE WHOLE until the age of majority of both children.

SIGNED IN TOWN A March 8, 2016 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Isabelle Loranger Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Adriana Chafoya-Hunter Attorney for the children Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the mother Me Josée Lefebvre Attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 29, 2015, January 22 and February 23, 2016