2011 QCCQ 7558, 2011 QCCQ 7558

Protection de la jeunesse — 111952 2011 QCCQ 7558 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « YOUTH DIVISION »

N° : 540-41-003280-103 DATE : May, 17 th 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the situation of: X Born on […] 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On February, 1 st , 2011, the Court declares that the security and development of the child X were in danger because there is a serious risk of neglect by the child's parents, in conformity with

section 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q., c.

P-34.1 ), given the fact that both parents recognized the situation explained in the reports produced and more particularly that their son X is extremely vulnerable considering his age, that the mother has a past history of severe neglect with two (2) others children and that the father has organisational difficulties and has a hard time to anticipate what should be done to ensure that X has a good development. [ 2 ] Therefore, the Court rendered measures for a period of approximatively four (4) months and entrusted X to his paternal grandparents, Mrs A and Mr.

B, with a social follow-up where the frequency and modalities of contacts between X and his father be determined with the DYP's delegate, the father and the grandparents within the best interest of the child, where the frequency and modalities of contacts between X and his mother be determined with the consent of the DYP's delegate, the mother and the grandparents within the best interest of the child and those contacts occurred in the presence of an adult.

The Court also ordered to both parents to actively collaborate with the services and the social follow-up, recommending that they participate to a program helping them to develop their parental abilities and organisational skills, and the mother to pursue her psychotherapy. Finally, that the parents informed the delegate of all the measures taken to correct the situation.

The enquiry on the motion for protection was adjourned on May, 17 th 2011. [ 3 ] On May 17 th , 2011, the Director of Youth Protection's attorney filed two (2) reports, the "Rapport d'évaluation psychologique" from [social worker 1], dated March 14, 2011 and the "complementary report" from [social worker 2], dated may 12, 2011 and asked essentially to extend the measures ordered on February, 1 st , 2011 for the next period of one (1) year, where the parents would also have to inform the delegate of any changes in their address and take notice that during that period of one (1) year, the Director of Youth Protection would see to elaborate a long term measure for X's life plan. [ 4 ] The father, Mr.

C testifies. He recognises in general the situation described and the last report prepared by [the social worker 2] filed as evidence to support the recommendations. However, he makes some precisions. He went to four (4) meetings and not two (2) at the YAPP program. Confirming that he resides at Mission A in A town, he admits that he cannot have X with him at the moment, that it will be irresponsible to think that he could. He wants to put her life on feet wishing to have his son back to him in the future.

As to the relationship with the mother, he is still ambivalent considering that it is not the time to have a long term relationship. Finally, he intends to continue to have contacts with his son and in the worst case scenario, that X be entrusted to his parents on a long term instead of being entrusted to strangers. [ 5 ] The mother, Mrs. D testifies. She recognizes all the facts and commentaries in the documents produced and agrees with all the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. Her plan is to have a residence of her own, be financially stable and

participate to a psychotherapy and also to the YAPP program during the next year, hoping to present a Petition for Reviews and have her son be entrusted to her, at least, within a year. She agrees that X stays with his paternal grandparents because he is safe with them and knows these people. Finally, regarding her relationship with the father, she mentioned that she wants to have a discussion with Mr.

C and her plan is to be back together. [ 6 ] Finally, the child's attorney mentioned that given the evidence and the position of the parents, all the measures proposed by the Director are in the best interest of X. [ 7 ] Since the last Court's order, the proof revealed that both parents were not visiting X on a regular basis for many reasons. Furthermore, in April, the parents visited their son four (4) times each but only on two (2) occasions, they were together.

When the mother was met by the delegate on April, 18 th , to summarise the situation, she mentioned that she is still mad at the father because he has been avoiding her and that she was not sure about their relationship anymore. In fact, the father became unreachable for more than a week around the middle of April and then, he was met by the delegate the 27 th of April.

He mentioned that he does not want to be in contact with the mother because it is to stressfull, on top of the stress he already has to deal with his own life. [ 8 ] The mother had a psychological assessment on March, 14 th , who identified that she has a passive-aggressive personality disorder. The psychologist recommends that she participates to a psychological follow-up to help her and Mrs. D intends to go through. [ 9 ] As to the grandparents, the showed in the last four (4) months that they have been able to take good care of X, provide for all of his needs and they are very attached to their grandson.

X is also attached to them and he is developing well. Both parents are informed that the next period of time is crucial and that if in the interest of the child, it is not possible to return him into his family, the decision must aim at ensuring continuity of care, stable relationship and stable living conditions corresponding to the child's needs and age on a permanent basis. (Section 4) of the Act). [ 10 ] THEREFORE, AND FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X are in danger in conformity with

Section 38 b) 2) of the Act; [ 12 ] EXTENDS the placement of X to his paternal grandsparents who are Mrs E and Mr.

F for the next period of one (1) year; [ 13 ] ORDERS that a person designated by the Director of Youth Protection of centre jeunesse A provides aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family and the grandparents for the same period of time; [ 14 ] ORDERS that frequency and modalities of contacts between X and his father be determined with the DYP's delegate, the father and the grandsparents, within the best interest of the child; [ 15 ] ORDERS that frequency and modalities of the contacts between X and his mother be determined with the DYP's delegate, the mother and the grandsparents, within the best interest of the child, these contacts be with the presence of an adult; [ 16 ] ORDERS both parents to actively collaborate with the services and the social follow-up; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS both parents to participate to a program helping them to develop their parental abilIties and organisational skills; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS the mother to pursue her psychotherapy;

[ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to inform the delegate of any changes of address and the measures taken by them to correct the situation. [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A, who shall than see that the measures are carried out; [ 21 ] ORDERS enforcement of this order by any peace officer; if need be. __________________________________ FRANÇOISE GARNEAU-FOURNIER J.C.Q. Me Isabelle ROY Procureur du Directeur Me Martine NOLIN Procureur de l'enfant