2013 QCCQ 8916, 2013 QCCQ 8916

Protection de la jeunesse — 131999 2013 QCCQ 8916 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-004167-121 760-41-004168-129 DATE: March 22, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born on […], 2006 Y , born on […], 2009 Children THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions for the extension of a Court decision rendered on May 9, 2012, concerning the siblings X and Y, born respectively on […], 2006 and […], 2009. [ 2 ] The previous order declares that the security and the development of the children are in danger in reason of educational neglect and health neglect (Y only).

The Court maintains the children in their family environment and orders various measures of aid and support for a period of 9 months. [ 3 ] The Director alleges that the continuance of instability in the family core inhibit the rehabilitation of the situation, requiring the pursuance of measures for a further period of 6 months.

The Director also suggests the revision of the measures to reflect the present family dynamic. [ 4 ] The parties consign their admissions in the Court record and declare their assent as to the measures. [ 5 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] Since the last judgment, the children initially share their time in their parent's respective homes. [ 7 ] Although the parent's communication remains tenuous, they are able to maintain minimal collaboration, particularly in regard to Y's various health care appointments. [ 8 ] This situation degenerates in view of events in the parent's respective personal lives, which impede the intervention and further intensify the deficiencies of the parental communication. [ 9 ] In July 2012, the father refuses to return the children to the mother's care, alleging that the mother is the object of abuse at the hands of her spouse, Mr.

C. The Director intervenes and the parties agree to share custody until a Court determination. [ 10 ] The following October, the father moves in with Ms. D. The mother objects to the children being in this environment, alleging the inappropriate nature of this relationship, as she alleges that Ms D is the father's biological half-sister.

The parties revise their custodial agreement and agree that the children stay with their father on the weekends at the paternal grandmother's home. [ 11 ] Notwithstanding this agreement, the father's contacts are sporadic until February 2013. [ 12 ] The mother maintains a fluctuating relationship with Mr. C. She admits a violent argument in December in the presence of the children, which spurs a separation.

The mother is unwilling to discuss the event and refuses to give the Director access to X. [ 13 ] On January 31, 2013, a provisional judgment entrusts the children to the mother under certain conditions. [ 14 ] Within the same period, a judgment of divorce intervenes between the parents (February 5, 2013).

The Court renders the following orders as pertain to the children (Judgment of divorce, pièce M-1): • GRANTS to the Defendant (mother) the custody of the minor children, X and Y; • DECLARES that the access rights to be exercised by the Plaintiff (father) regarding the minor children, X and Y, will be as follows:

a) Every week-end, Friday to Sunday;

b) At any other moment to be established between the parties; [ 15 ] These judgments signal a renewal of the parent's implication towards rehabilitating the situation. The mother's collaboration improves and she becomes available for the intervention. There is respect of the father's access schedule. [ 16 ] The father terminates his relationship with Ms. D and moves in with his mother. He admits that Ms D is not a healthy presence for his children. The mother resumes her relationship with Mr. C, though not common life. The parties agree to contacts between Mr.

C and the children, to which the father signals his reservations. [ 17 ] The Director's assistance remains pertinent in order to aid the parents to navigate their mutual recriminations and insecurities and find consistent and effective means to communicate in view of responding to their children's needs. [ 18 ] Both children require specific health care services. Y has developmental delays and medical diagnoses, which cannot suffer indolence or inconsistency. Y misses appointments that result in the suspension of services with the [A center].

The CLSC will offer services regarding Y's difficulties and an individualized service plan is expected shortly.

[ 19 ] The fluctuations in the parents respective personal lives contribute to the precariousness of the situation.

It is therefore crucial that they address these issues, in order to be fully available for their children. [ 20 ] The Court concludes that it is necessary to prolong the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection, in order to ensure the continuation of services and address the ongoing issues, which still affect the security and the development of the children. [ 21 ] As well as receiving the approval of the parties, the Court estimates that the recommendations respect the rights and the best interests, of the children. [ 22 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the children to their mother; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the children be determined in accordance with the frequency established by the Superior Court judgment rendered on February 5th, 2013 and more particularly, that the father have access to the children every weekend from Friday to Sunday, as well as at any other moment following mutual agreement between the parents; [ 27 ] TAKES ACT that the father's contacts will be exercised at the paternal grandmother's domicile, although not under her supervision; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents cooperate as to the application of the present measures; [ 29 ] ORDERS that any contacts between the children and Mr.

C be authorized by the Director and this, in taking in consideration the father's position; [ 30 ] TAKES ACT that at the present time, the parties authorize contacts between Mr. C and the children; [ 31 ] FORBIDS the father to put the children in contact with Mrs.

D; [ 32 ] AUTORIZES the Director to meet with the children in the absence of their parents; [ 33 ] ORDERS the parents to not denigrate each other in the presence of the children, nor permit that a third party do so; [ 34 ] ORDERS the parents to not discuss Court proceedings nor judgments with the children, or in their presence; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the children receive the specific health services required by their individual situations, specifically: • Y: follow-up with the [A center], physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy; • X: follow-up as to his medication, follow-up with the CLSC; [ 36 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for six (6) months; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Karine Nantais Attorney for the Petitioner Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: March 22, 2013