2017 QCCQ 18687, 2017 QCCQ 18687

Protection de la jeunesse — 179028 2017 QCCQ 18687 JO0374 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] Youth Division No: 525-41-030209-159 DATE : January 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE CASE OF: X Born [...], 2015 Director of Youth Protection A Applicant A Mother B Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 revise and extend the order rendered on May 17, 2016, declaring the child’s situation endangered as a result of a serious risk of negligence and psychological ill treatment and entrusting her to a foster home for six months with a social follow-up. [ 2 ] The Director submits that, although the child’s reintegration with the father has progressed positively, he continues to require support from the Director.

Moreover, his relationship with the mother is still strained and the Director’s intervention remains necessary in that regard. The mother’s level of cooperation with the Director has been poor and visits with the child are inconsistent. [ 3 ] As a result, the Director is asking the Court to entrust the child to her father with a social follow-up for a period of one year.

Additionally, the Court is being asked to prohibit the mother’s boyfriend C, from having any contact with the child as a result of his extensive criminal background and of the Director’s involvement in his own children’s situation. [ 4 ] The father admits the majority of the allegations and consents to the recommendations. [ 5 ] The mother is absent despite having been duly served. [ 6 ] The attorney for the child is in agreement with the measures proposed and supports the prohibition of contact requested by the Director.

The Situation [ 7 ] Since the prior judgment, the father has continued to cooperate with the various services put into place. He has completed an anger management program and parenting workshops. He has demonstrated the ability to implement methods learned and has established a structured routine that meets all of the child’s needs. [ 8 ] It should be noted that the father has completely ceased the use of marihuana and since October of 2016, all drug tests have been negative. [ 9 ] The transition to full-time care has progressed smoothly and the father is currently in an adequate two bedroom apartment that

is fully equipped for the child. He continues to benefit from the support of the Maison Oxygène and Dans La Rue programs. [ 10 ] The youth worker has observed a secure bond between the child and her father. The child is developing well and there are no concerns regarding either health or development. She attends daycare within walking distance from her home. [ 11 ] The mother’s cooperation has been limited and communication with the social worker is often strained, primarily because of the Director’s refusal to allow her boyfriend, C, to participate in visits with the child.

In reaction to this restriction, the mother’s visits with the child have been inconsistent. [ 12 ] The youth worker’s request for a prohibition of contact is based on Mr. C’s own involvement with youth protection services, his extensive criminal record as well as the fact that he has previously been investigated for sexual assault. Furthermore, the father has reported that the boyfriend engages in harassing behaviour towards him. [ 13 ] Although Mr.

C was served with a summons offering him the opportunity to contest the Director’s request for a prohibition of contact, he failed to appear. [ 14 ] There has been little evolution in the mother’s situation. She has refused to attend any random drug tests and has not yet taken any steps regarding treatment for her dependency. She attended neither attended parenting classes nor sought services in relation to conjugal violence. [ 15 ] On August 20, 2016, the parents inadvertently came into contact when the mother arrived early for a supervised visit.

In the course of a disagreement, the mother became aggressive and volatile in the child’s presence. Since then, she has ceased all contact both with the worker and with the child. [ 16 ] Although the mother has contacted the father directly with the hope of arranging a visit through him, the father has refused to adhere to her request and has referred her to the youth worker instead, in accordance with the conditions of the previous judgement. Conclusion [ 17 ] The father’s progress has been remarkable.

He is clearly invested in his role as caregiver and willingly cooperates with a number of services for the purpose of improving his parental skills and offering his daughter everything that she requires. [ 18 ] The mother’s detachment from her child in recent months is unfortunate and contrary to her daughter’s interest. The child would most benefit from contact with a mother who is available and invested in her well-being.

The Court encourages the mother to cooperate with the Director and to make every effort to improve her personal situation through the various services at her disposal. [ 19 ] Regarding the request for a prohibition of contact, the Director has established that such a measure is necessary and in the child’s interest. [ 20 ] In conclusion, the Court is of the opinion that the Director’s recommendations meet the child’s needs and best interests. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, [ 22 ] THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child is still endangered for the reasons initially declared; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the care of the father to the exclusion of the mother; [ 26 ] TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE of the father’s consent, ORDERS that he continue to cooperate with services provided by the organisation Dans la rue ; [ 27 ] AUTHORIZES contact between the mother and the child after the mother has presented herself to three consecutive social service meetings and thereafter, ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the mother be determined in accordance with an agreement between the parties failing which, the Director will determined the frequency and modality of these contacts including a degree of supervision if necessary; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father abstain from consuming all mood altering drugs; [ 29 ] GIVEN the father’s consent, ORDERS that he undergo random drug testing at the request of the Director; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother undergo random drug testing at the request of the Director; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother complete a substance abuse assessment and participate in a program that addresses conjugal violence; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in a parenting class or program and that she follow through with any recommendations made by the treating professionals; [ 33 ] PROHIBITS C to be in any contact directly or indirectly with the child;

[ 34 ] ORDERS that C be served with the conclusion that concerns him; [ 35 ] GIVEN the father’s consent, AUTHORIZES the DYP to exchange information with relevant treating professionals working with him; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family including the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year.

SIGNED IN CITY A On January 27, 2017 __________________________________ KAREN OHAYON, J.C.Q. Me Marie-Josée Paiement (remplacée par Me Edith Zavodni) Attorney for the D.Y.P. Me Luce James Attorney for the child Me François Pelletier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 5 and 27, 2017 KO/lf