2015 QCCQ 17754, 2015 QCCQ 17754

Protection de la jeunesse — 155678 2015 QCCQ 17754 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000461-142 DATE: August 25, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], authorized person by the DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Petitioner -and- X born on [...], 2011 Child -and- A -and- B Parents ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise and extend the order rendered on February 25, 2015, in respect of the child. Her other siblings are aimed by the same request. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and represented. She agrees with the measures proposed by the DYP except that she wishes the child to be entrusted to her right away.

She also agrees with the filing of the report to value the testimony of their author. [ 3 ] Concerning the father, the DYP requests to be dispensed of the serving of the petition since he is in [Country A]. The evidence shows that the father was aware of the hearing set on this day, and the worker discussed with him about the measures that will be proposed to the court. At the time, he was assisted by the Director of tribal counsel for child services of his community. He mentioned to the worker that he would not be present at the Court hearing on August 5, 2015.

Furthermore, he signed a document on July 29, 2015 stating that he agrees with the recommendations of the DYP, and it also mentions the Court date. Moreover, the father was present over the phone while the revision of child’s file occurred, and he is well aware of the situation in this file.

For these reasons and in the best interest of the child, the hearing will proceed and the court dispenses the serving of this petition to the father. [ 4 ] The father is not present in the child’s life. [ 5 ] On September 30, 2014, the DYP got involved with the family after the mother committed physical abuse on her older children. The intervention led to the entrusting of the children to a foster family, and the mother had an interdiction to contact them.

The grounds for this decision was based on the mother’s physical abuse or risk of abuse towards her children, and the serious risk of neglect related to her drug addiction. [ 6 ] Since then, the mother made some serious changes in her life. On November 14, 2014, the mother involved herself in a detox program in Miramichi (NB). She has been sober since, and she participates in several follow ups. Starting on April 7, 2015, she put herself through voluntary drug testing weekly, it all came back negative. She is willing to continue the testing.

The mother was sentenced for charges of assault against her two older children. [ 7 ] Beginning in February 2015, the mother has had weekly supervised visits with her child. In March 2015, the child gradually reintegrated a new foster home, that is to say, her grandparents. Afterwards, the supervised visits with the mother were increased to a daily basis. The child also has visits at her mother’s home where spot checks are done in order to verify how it is going, and everything

seems fine. [ 8 ] The mother collaborates with the services, but she needs help because she is still fragile. She also benefits from the support of her parents who, in fact, are the ones acting as foster family and from friends in the community. [ 9 ] An assessment of parental capacities of the mother was done by Dr. Nadeau, and clearly the mother cares for her child. Basically, it was noticed that her parental capacities are influenced by her drug addiction, but she put herself in action very quickly to take care of that problem and seek a therapy to address it.

Subsequently, she pursues her follow ups, and she intends to do so as long as deemed necessary. The mother made a lot of efforts to improve her condition and conduct, of course she remains vulnerable, but her relationship with the children is adequate and secure. Moreover, the assessment concludes that there’s no indication of parental incapacity in regards of the mother. Despite that, DYP suggested that only the twins be entrusted immediately to the mother.

For X and Y, the DYP requested a progressive reintegration until October 31, 2015, mainly because of the conclusion of the assessment of parental capacities produced in the file. [ 10 ] The evidence demonstrates that the worker doesn’t have any doubt that the mother can handle all of her children at the same time.

On the other hand, the assessment suggests a progressive reintegration of all the children, because of the specific needs of the children and the personality features of the mother, so it is suggested to begin with the reintegration of the twins and after X and Y. [ 11 ] Moreover, the child reacts to the fact that two of her siblings are already back with the mother and not her; the child is sad seeing that she is not able to go too, and she doesn’t understand why.

For these motives, the Court believes it is indicated to proceed with a progressive reintegration, but with a shorter delay than the one suggested. [ 12 ] Considering, the mother has done a lot of work, and she intends to pursue her follows up, but she still needs services. She collaborates well with the services, and she is supported by her family and friends. The worker states that there’s no danger if the child goes back to live with her mother with all her siblings.

Although she thinks that a period of transition is necessary to allow the mother to adapt and to have a structure put in place before the complete return of all the children, because it’s been a while since she’s had them, all together. [ 13 ] Under the circumstances, the petition is well founded. The suggested measures appear to be in the best interest of this child but with a reduction of the delay for the reintegration.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] dispense the serving of the petition to the father; [ 15 ] GRANTS the petition for revision and extension of order; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 17 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 25, 2015; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family designated by the DYP until September 30, 2015; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from a progressive reintegration to the maternal home until September 30, 2015; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother starting on October 1 st , 2015; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from a psychological follow-up; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother pursues her psychological follow up, for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother pursues her addiction counselling, for as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother benefit from a parental skill counselling to avoid any use of physical violence towards her child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in the application of the measures suggested by the DYP; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the contacts between father/child be determined following an agreement between the parties and supervised by a third party designated by the DYP for the period deemed necessary; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working in an establishment provides aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family until August 31, 2016; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child 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 Lynn-Ann Smith for the petitioner Me Mathieu Racine for the child Me Hugo Caissy for the mother Mr. B the father (absent) Date of hearing: August 5, 2015