2020 QCCQ 3714, 2020 QCCQ 3714

Protection de la jeunesse — 203699 2020 QCCQ 3714 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000619-194 DATE: June 5, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2014 child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Adolescent 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on September 6, 2019, in order to entrust the child to the mother. His sister is aimed by the same proceedings. A joint hearing is held with the agreement of the parties. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are absent, even if they were duly notified. However, the mother is represented by a lawyer as well as the child.

The facts of the demand are not contested nor the recommendations of the DYP. [ 3 ] Since the last measure, the mother receives support services for her personal issues and parental skills. At the beginning, she attends the meetings scheduled but a few months later she had difficulties keeping up with the appointments and often missed them. She explains that this is due to vehicle problems, the illness of her mother who recently passed away. Her financial situation was worrisome and causes her stress and anger.

Some services are added to help her, to provide notably, home support, parental skills, parental capacities, financial provision for food and daycare coverage. [ 4 ] The professional involved in this family fears that the mother will go back to her old ways. What is reassuring is that she recognizes her emotions and takes the initiative to ask for help when needed. She has a lot of support from her family. [ 5 ] Regarding the father, around February 2020, he wished to be involved more actively in his son’s life. Considering that, supervised visits are established.

The father collaborates with the DYP and he is open to any suggestions. He wants to remain in his son’s life in order to develop a strong as well as a healthy relationship with him. [ 6 ] The parents get along and they are able to communicate respectfully to one another, on a regular basis. Before the father came forward to be part of the child’s life, they had no communication whatsoever. [ 7 ] The child is 5 years old, he is described as a shy and easy going boy. He attends the kindergarten [immersion program A] and he is doing well. Still, according to his teachers he can be emotional sometimes.

He also adopts certain worrisome behaviours and uses adult language. Recently, he seems more aggressive and angry. It will be beneficial for him even at this young age, to receive professional services, more specifically from a psychologist. [ 8 ] Even if in the past months, the mother had a few setbacks, we cannot put aside that she wants to improve and make the necessary efforts to do so. She mobilizes herself to make positive changes in her life and is actively involved in it. She even got a bigger apartment for the family.

She is aware that she has to stabilize her situation and presently requires a lot of support but things are evolving positively. The DYP makes surprise visits at her home, there is nothing to say and she is very receptive to it.

[ 9 ] Despite everything, the mother is able to provide to the child a loving and secure home with all the supports she gets. Her willingness to change her path is a sign that she is trying hard, to do things in a better way for them. [ 10 ] Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the security and development of the adolescent are still in danger. Considering this, as well as the absence of contestation of the measures suggested by the DYP which appears to be in the best interest of the child. WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANT the amended application for revision and extension of order; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger, according to

section 38 of the Youth protection act ; [ 13 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the court rendered on September 6, 2019 in the present file; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father take place following an agreement between the parties and that they be supervised as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child receives a psychological counselling; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parent report whenever required to the DYP on the measures that they apply to themselves or to the child to put an end to the situation that compromises the security and development of the child; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in a follow-up with an addiction’s counselling, as long as deemed necessary; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents actively participate in psychological counselling to help them deal with their personal issues; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in anger management and parental capacity assessment; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures ordered to put and to the situation of endangerment; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and his family until June 30, 2021; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the adolescent to the DYP of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A for the carrying out of the present judgment. __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Jules Grenier for the child Me Ann-Chloé Boudreau for the mother Mr. B (absent) the father Written judgment filed on June 11, 2020