2020 QCCQ 14325, 2020 QCCQ 14325

Protection de la jeunesse — 20561 2020 QCCQ 14325 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 145-41-000602-182 DATE: January 29, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant -and- X born on [...], 2013 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 ] Last June, the Court orders the application of protective measures because the child suffers from psychological ill-treatment and is submitted to a serious risk of neglect. The Court then entrusts the child to his mother. [ 2 ] Since then, the situation has improved but remains preoccupying. Therefore, the director of youth protection (DYP) asks that the application of protective measures be extended for several months.

Following discussions between lawyers, all parties agree about the recommended measures. They notably ask the Court to put in place a specific time frame for a minimum of contacts between the child and his father. [ 3 ] Following the hearing, the Court renders an oral judgment, granting the application. Here are the reasons supporting that decision. [ 4 ] The child displays aggressive behaviour, both at home and in school. He becomes easily frustrated and struggles with outbursts.

He obviously needs structure and routine in order to function adequately. [ 5 ] The mother cooperates with the DYP and other professionals who provide support. However, she sometimes appears a little reluctant to contact between the child and his father. [ 6 ] Trust between the mother and the father, as well as between the father and the DYP remains a challenge.

However, a meeting takes place prior to the holidays where both parents and the youth protection delegate sit together and discuss openly and respectfully the visitation schedule. [ 7 ] The father has regular contact with his son, except for several weeks last fall when he is less available because of his work schedule. Both father and son have a really good time. The child enjoys being with his father while they do activities and play together. However, the father does not discipline his son, neither does he intervene to calm him down when the child gets overexcited and too noisy.

Obviously, the father wishes that contact be pleasant for the child, but nonetheless structure remains a challenge for the father. [ 8 ] The father worked on his house, and his living environment is now suitable for the child. The home is adequately furnished, and the child has plenty of toys. [ 9 ] Until very recently, the father is still reluctant to work with the DYP. However, he receives counselling. He meets a professional who provides mental health counselling and anger management therapy. The father is engaged in his follow-up.

[ 10 ] At the light of the evidence, there is hope for the future. The father still needs to work on his parenting, notably in regards with structure and discipline. Being a parent is not only fun and play. The presence of the external educator can help the father with his parenting skills, if the latter is willing to change. If so, the child will benefit from the presence of his father more frequently. [ 11 ] Both parents love their son and intend to take an active

part in his upbringing. It is in the child’s best interest to work towards that goal. [ 12 ] The evidence convinces the Court that the application is well founded. FOR THESE REASONS AND THOSE EXPRESSED ORALLY AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [ 13 ] GRANTS the application for revision and extension of order; [ 14 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be in danger according to

section 38 of the youth protection act ; [ 15 ] REVISES AND EXTENDS the Court order rendered on June 20, 2019; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his mother; [ 17 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and his father be determined following an agreement between the parties, and notably, as a minimum, that they take place: ➢ Every Sunday from 1 pm until Monday 8 am; ➢ Tuesdays from 4 pm until 5:30 pm, accompanied by an external educator; ➢ Saturdays from 10 am until noon; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child and his mother benefit from the services of an external educator as long as deemed necessary by the DYP; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents report whenever required by the DYP on the measures they apply to themselves or to their child to put an end to the situation that puts the security or development of the child in danger; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the child benefit from a psychological assessment; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father submit himself to a parental capacities and psychological evaluation; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the father involve himself in counselling for his anger management problem; [ 23 ] ORDERS that a person working for an establishment provide aid, counsels and assistance to the child and his family until October 31, 2020; [ 24 ] 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. __________________________________ JANICK POIRIER, J.C.Q.

Me Louyse A. Lemieux for the applicant Me Isabelle Gagnon for the child Me Alexis Deschênes for the mother Me Ariane Cayer for the father

Written judgment filed on February 3, 2020