r v. A, 2016 QCCQ 6481

Protection de la jeunesse — 162644 2016 QCCQ 6481 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004980-150 DATE: February 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2014 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

A Parent ______________________________________________________________________ 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 presents a motion for protection concerning the child X, alleging that her security and development are in danger in view of a serious risk of neglect. [ 2 ] The Director seeks the application of protective measures for 6 months.

Initially requesting the placement of the child in foster care, the Director revisits this recommendation following the mother’s efforts to address the situation of endangerment. [ 3 ] The mother consigns her admissions and adheres to Director’s evaluation and orientation of her daughter’s situation. [ 4 ] The child’s attorney operates under a legal mandate.

After evaluating the evidence, she supports the orientation put forth by the Director. [ 5 ] Analysis and decision [ 6 ] Since 2008, the Director of Youth Protection applies protective measures in regards to the child’s siblings Y and Z, in reason of psychological ill-treatment and serious risk of physical abuse, all stemming from a persistent parental conflict. [ 7 ] Successive orders recognize that the situation knows little progress and that the mother’s ability to respond to her children’s needs is an increasingly problematic element.

Eventually, the Court decides that the children should reside with their parents on an alternate basis instead of solely in their mother’s care. [ 8 ] On November 24, 2015, the Court revises the protective measures as to Z and Y. Determining that the mother continues to struggle with her children’s needs for structure and routine, offers minimal cooperation with the Director and furthermore, has ongoing issues as to drug consumption; the Court retains an additional situation of endangerment of educational neglect.

Amid other measures, the Court entrusts the siblings to the care of their father. [ 9 ] Although the mother is able to respond to X’s basic needs, the evidence demonstrates that the child benefits from no regular routine and receives little stimulation. She is showing developmental delays in the areas of problem solving, communication and fine motor skills.

In spite of this fact being brought to the mother’s attention, she is initially unreceptive neither to services nor to the suggestion of integrating her daughter in daycare. [ 10 ] The evidence demonstrates that despite the numerous services offered to the family in the last years, the situation of neglect remains, exacerbated by the mother’s mitigated cooperation. The mother’s drug consumption and life habits are contributive factors to

her children not receiving a constant and appropriate response to their needs. [ 11 ] The chronicity of the problematic issues in place in the maternal environment is the basis of the serious risk of neglect and measures are required to address this situation and stem repercussions on the child. [ 12 ] Recently, there are numerous changes in the mother’s cooperation and involvement with the intervention.

She reactivates numerous services, namely: • A follow-up with Le Tournant , in regards to support for her mental health; • A follow-up with Via L’anse , in regards to violence and anger control; • A recovery management program with CRD Foster, in regards to her drug consumption; • Integrating X in a daycare facility. [ 13 ] At the hearing, the mother declares her abstinence as to drugs for the last two months.

She further stipulates her intention to maintain her sobriety as well as a follow-up in this regard. [ 14 ] The Court finds that the mother has regained focus in the last months and is making strides in responding to the personal issues which impede her parental capacities and constitute the basis of the situation of neglect. She is more collaborative with the social worker and is receptive to receiving services.

It is certainly no coincidence that this period also corresponds to an abstinence from drugs. [ 15 ] The parties set out a number of conditions which underpin the agreement to maintain X in her family environment and confirm the mother’s undertakings (D-6). The Court cites: 1. X attends daycare on a full time basis. 2. Ms A continues her follow-up with Via L’anse 3. Ms A continues her follow-up with Foster. 4. Ms A assures that no adults are intoxicated while in the presence of the child. 5. Ms A is not intoxicated in the presence of the child. 6. Ms A agrees to surprise visits wherever she resides. 7.

Ms A consents to the exchange of information between the Director of Youth Protection and the services / professionals involved in the child’s and mother’s life. 8. Ms A allows regular access to the child to the Director of Youth Protection. 9. Ms A remains collaborative and transparent with our services. [ 16 ] The Court endorses the structure put forth in the agreement, considering this the essence of the intervention required to respond to the situation of endangerment.

In conjuncture with the mother’s activation permits the Court to retain a positive outlook justifying that the child remain in her maternal environment.

The period of measures should serve to promote the mother’s efforts and integrate the changes in place. [ 17 ] Should the mother make choices distancing herself from these minimal engagements, the history of her commitment and parental capacities will justify that be considered alternate measures destined to assure that X benefit from an environment responding to her needs. [ 18 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motion for protection; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of a serious risk of neglect; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her mother; [ 22 ] TAKES ACT of the mother's undertaking as to the conditions detailed in D6; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the mother reports periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures she apply in her own regard on her child's regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother takes an active

part in the application of the measures; [ 25 ] RECOMMANDS that the mother takes

part in a personal follow-up regarding her difficulties; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her family; [ 27 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for a period of 6 months; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A for the execution of the judgment.

__________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. Me Frédérique Dupuy Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: February 5, 2016