2021 QCCQ 15275, 2021 QCCQ 15275

Protection de la jeunesse — 218771 2021 QCCQ 15275 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000971-199 DATE: September 22, 2021 (written judgment rendered on December 9, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to prolong a decision rendered on September 28, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to a foster family and recommended that the child be maintained with Ms.

C, until September 30, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and asks that the child be entrusted to a foster family and be gradually reintegrated under the care of his father as soon as the situation allows it, until May 31, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. Her whereabouts are unknown. The DYP worker and the supervisor present ignore the steps taken to notify the mother with the application, but the DYP try to reach her through FM calls and at her place of work without any success.

Considering the best interest of the child, the Court dispenses the DYP of serving the application and proceed in the absence of the mother. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Ève Laoun. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures, but asks for more contacts. [ 5 ] The child is absent, but represented by Me Kelly Ann Sinnett. After hearing the evidence, Me Sinnett submits to the Court that his security and development are still endangered and that the measures suggested are in his best interest.

History of the Situation [ 6 ] On September 25, 2019 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. The child was 5 years old. The parents were separated and the father had the custody of the child. The father was diagnosed with mental health issues (personality disorder with dependant traits, major depressive disorder with recurrence and with anxious distress, symptoms of fatigue and poor concentration) and he received professional help. The father requested the child’s placement as he was overwhelmed. The mother had alcohol consumption issues, and she displayed suicidal ideation.

She explained that she has a lot of support from her family and that she can take care of the child while the father is taking care of him. The Court declared that the security and development of the child were endangered [1] and entrusted the child to his mother until September 30, 2020. [ 7 ] On May 1, 2020 , the Court entrusted the child to a foster family on provisional measures. [ 8 ] On September 28, 2020 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence showed that the mother displayed suicidal ideation in the presence of the child in April 2020. The child was entrusted to Ms. C in Town A.

The father returned to Town B for a few months and came back living in Town C. None of the parents were able to take care of the child. The Court entrusted the child to a foster family

and recommended that he be entrusted to Ms. C, the whole until September 3, 2021. Facts and Analysis [ 9 ] As recommended, X was fostered by Ms. C in Town A after the last decision, but due to her unexpected medical issues, X had to be moved to another foster family. He went to his aunt’s place in Town C, but she was not approved as a foster family, so X moved again. He is now with Ms. D and Mr. E in Town C. [ 10 ] X is described as very intelligent and caring. He opens up more and more with his foster parents.

He evolves in a three-language environment. [ 11 ] He had no health issues except an appendicitis which required for him to be medevaced to Montreal. He recovered well. [ 12 ] His behaviour had raised some concerns particularly due to inappropriate sexual gestures and outburst. The adolescent is supposed to start a psychological follow-up soon. The DYP plans to make a request for him to receive services from an external educator and a psychological evaluation. [ 13 ] The mother’s collaboration is very poor.

She admits still having alcohol consumption issues. [ 14 ] The father is from Town B, but lives in the community of Town C. During this revision period, he had housing issues, but he recently get his own place to stay. The father also improved his collaboration and got more involved in the follow-up. He also receives services from the Social Services in Town C. This social service helps him to deal with his mental health issues for which he had to be hospitalized in June 2020.

The father says that he is feeling better and would like to have more contacts with his son. [ 15 ] The contacts between the father and the child became more regular and due to this consistency, the contacts increased to 3 times a week starting in June 2021. Considering the visits are going very well, the DYP agrees to continue to increase the duration and the frequency. [ 16 ] The father has no parental difficulty.

The bonds between him and his son are very strong. [ 17 ] The DYP worker notes that despite the great improvement made by the father, there is sometimes a lack of transparency regarding his situation, particularly regarding the services he receives and his alcohol consumption. But it is important to note that during the few events of consumption that the DYP would have been made aware of, the child was never present.

The father contests the content of the police occurrence report which mentions that he would have been intoxicated during the police intervention. [ 18 ] With more transparency from the father, and considering the contacts are very positive, the DYP worker considers that a reintegration is possible before the end of the recommended measures. [ 19 ] The child’s situation continues to be endangered and the measures recommended are in his best interest. The father commits to collaborate actively with the DYP.

He confirms to the Court that he understand the importance to be transparent for the DYP to be reassured that the child is safe.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the application; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are still endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of his father as soon as the situation allows it, notably but not exclusively, if the father: • Respects the visitation calendar; • Remains sober in the presence of the child; • Is available for the child when the child is with him; • Maintains his stability; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents receive the services of an external educator before and after the reintegration, at least every 2 weeks; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and refrain from any kind of violence in the presence of the child; [ 28 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through Social Services, or another resource deemed appropriate for her substance abuse, mental health, and relationship issues; [ 29 ] Considering his consent, ORDERS that the father seek help through Social Services, or another resource deemed appropriate for his substance abuse, mental health, and relationship issues, before the reintegration;

[ 30 ] ORDERS the father to inform the Director of Youth Protection about the name of the professionals involved in his life; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information with the professionals involved in the father’s life regarding the objectives to be worked on, the meetings frequency, the father’s presence at appointments, his collaboration and his level of involvement with the services provided; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to access the information of the mother’s presence at appointments and her level of involvement with the services provided; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and his mother be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his father be determined after an agreement between the father and the Youth Protection, and if an agreement cannot be reached, that the Director of Youth Protection determines the modalities, the frequency, and the degree of supervision; [ 35 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to perform unannounced visits at the parents’ residence when the child is present; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or a body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 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 until May 31, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Nada Boumeftah, attorney for the child Me Ève Laoun, attorney for the father Date of hearing: September 22, 2021