2023 QCCQ 6578, 2023 QCCQ 6578

Protection de la jeunesse — 233431 2023 QCCQ 6578 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] « Youth Division »

No: 140-41-000760-239 DATE : June 19, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X Born on [...], 2018 Child and A 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 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The director of youth protection (DYP) asks the Court to declare that the security and development of the child are in danger according to sections 38 b ) 1 o ii and 38 b ) 1 o iii because of a situation of neglect regarding health and educational neglect. Her brother and sister are aimed by the same application. The file proceeds by common evidence. [ 2 ] At the hearing, both parents are present, but are not assisted by a lawyer. They agree with the recommendations sought by the DYP.

The children are represented by a lawyer, which looks at their best interests. CONTEXT [ 3 ] The DYP got involved with the family at the beginning of February 2023 because of allegations regarding the father’s substance abuse problems and neglect in the family environment. On April 4 th , the parties signed a provisional agreement in order for the children to receive different services needed for their development. [ 4 ] The parents are together since 2015. They have three children aged respectively 5, 2 and 1 years’ old, which are the subject of these procedures.

In 2018 [1] , the DYP was also involved for a year for the oldest child. They receive service from an educator involved in “Programme stimulation précoce 0-5 ans” since X’s birth. The father was absent almost all meetings, even if he was not working. [ 5 ] For the past two years, for the younger children, they also benefit from a follow-up with a social worker from “Services intégrés en périnatalité et petite enfance (SIPPE)”. Some difficulties were observed regarding the daily routine and discipline. They spend a lot of hours on the screen instead of stimulating activities.

ANALYSIS [ 6 ] According to the parents, they receive services from professional at home and they are present to do activities with the children, instead of them. They cannot specify which objectives are worked on, in relation to the children. It is difficult to know at what time the children go to sleep. They have no structure, rules, or discipline at home. After the signing of the provisional agreement, many services were provided to them.

• X [ 7 ] X is 5 years old and started school last September. When she was born, she was entrusted to her paternal grandparents. When the child was around 2 years old, her educator informs the parents that she has worries about her language development which have worsened over time. The child was finally referred to speech therapy after parents’ approval even if the father has no worries about her language development. Overtime, more difficulties were observed. Another referral for speech therapy was proposed and the father refuses the reference because he does not believe that the child has difficulties.

When she started school, the teacher made the same observation, then the parents finally agreed with it. She was evaluated in 2023 and she was diagnosed with a developmental language disorder. The father disagreed with the evaluation and the mother minimizes the situation. The child has a hard time to answer simple questions. • Y [ 8 ] Y is 2 years old. She recently started attending daycare. She wears the same clothes several days in a row and would wear the same diaper then the day before. It was observed that she has difficulties with language and motor skills.

They proposed a reference for speech therapy, which the parents refuse. • Z [ 9 ] Z is 1 years old and will attend daycare in August 2023. He was referred in physiotherapy for plagiocephaly. Some difficulties were also observed regarding movement and physical development milestones. The parents never attended the follow-up. DECISION [ 10 ] Since the DYP’s intervention, the father is more involved in his family and the services. During unannounced visits during the morning routine, the children are calm and ready for their day.

Drug screening tests are carried out with the parents, all of which turn out to be negative. [ 11 ] Currently, all the children present difficulties requiring specific care. Although the parents at first show reluctance or refuse referrals to professionals, it seems that the situation is changing for the better. The father becomes more involved and more accepting of services. The mother is also more mobilized, although from the start she has shown further openness to services than the father.

Obviously, the children have developmental delays that need to be worked on. [ 12 ] The presence of the DYP remains necessary to ensure that the follow-ups and the involvement of the parents are maintained in the longer term. [ 13 ] The evidence demonstrates that the security and the development of the child are in danger according to sections 38 b ) 1 o ii and 38 b ) 1 o iii of the Youth Protection Act . Considering the evidence submitted, the application is well-founded. Furthermore, the measures suggested by the DYP are in the child’s best interest.

FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED VERBALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the application for protection; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of Y are in danger according to sections 38 b ) 1 o ii and 38 b ) 1 o iii of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child remains with her parents; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the child receives all health care and social services required by her condition, especially speech therapy, as long as deemed necessary by the professionals and according to the service’s availability; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents actively participate in applying the measures ordered; [ 19 ] ORDERS that a person working within an organization or institution provide help, advice and assistance to the child and her family until June 30, 2024; [ 20 ] 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; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the persons concerned by the present order to comply with it . __________________________________ CELESTINA ALMEIDA, J.C.Q.

Me Alexia Chrétien for the applicant Me Mylène Murray for the child Ms. A Mother Mr. B Father Written judgment filed on June 28, 2023.