r v. A, 2015 QCCQ 20656

Protection de la jeunesse — 157903 2015 QCCQ 20656 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 760-41-004766-146 DATE: September 29, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X Born: [...], 2009 Child ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner v.

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 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents a motion for extension of a Court decision rendered on February 9, 2015 concerning X born on [...], 2009 (the Court specifies his full name in accordance with his birth certificate and his designation in the previous judgment). [ 2 ] In virtue of the last judgment, the Court declares that the security and the development of the child are in danger in reason of health and educational neglect as well as psychological ill-treatment.

Protective measures are put in force for a period of 6 months, more notably entrusting the child to the care of Ms C, providing health care services specific to his needs and determining that the contacts with his parents be upon agreement between the parties. [ 3 ] By the motion for extension, the Director alleges that while the child is evolving well under the care of Ms. C, the parents offer minimal cooperation as to the application of measures and fail to maintain regular contacts with their son.

As such, the Director recommends the extension of the protective measures for 9 months. [ 4 ] The parents consign their admissions. The mother agrees to the conclusions of the motion, while the father requests that the Court entrust X to his care. [ 5 ] The attorney for the child operates under a legal mandate and, after the hearing, declares that the interests of her client correspond to the orientation put forth by the Director. [ 6 ] Context [ 7 ] Since the last order, X is progressing well in his foster milieu.

He receives a consistent response to his developmental delays and health needs, which remain significant. Specifically, he is responding well to the regular follow-ups with the CMR and the stimulation in his foster home. [ 8 ] As he is commencing school, specific services are being put in place to optimize his potential. [ 9 ] Increasingly, X is bonding with his foster milieu and recently, of his own volition, designates having two pairs of parents. Ms. C receives accreditation as a foster family for X. [ 10 ] Since the last judgment, X benefits from visits with his parents, although these are not regular.

It is important to note that there were no impediment as to contacts, as long as it is following an established calendar.

[ 11 ] X sees his mother for three weekends as well as a few day visits. The parties agree to suspend the weekend visits in May considering the importance of X’s reactions in relation to the visitation period (diurnal enuresis, aggressive behaviours, eating and sleeping disturbances).

The mother admits having difficulty structuring X during her visits and that his reactions are probably anxiety symptoms. [ 12 ] Since that time, X sees his mother at the foster home on a monthly basis and he no longer presents the reactions previously observed. [ 13 ] In the last months, the mother decides to work towards having X remain in his present foster environment on the long term and allowing Ms. C to make decisions for his well-being.

Her cooperation fluctuates and since the summer, she states no longer wanting to participate in the intervention. [ 14 ] As to the father, no contacts occur until May 29, 2015. The father further states being mistrustful of social services and to having sought to establish his contacts with X through the foster family, to little avail. [ 15 ] Since May, X spends four out of seven possible weekends with his father. Since July, no visits occur as the caseworker awaits the father clarifying his work

schedule to discuss specific visitation. [ 16 ] The father cooperation is minimal. He presents himself for only one of three scheduled meetings with the caseworker. As to his personal situation, it vacillates since the last judgment while remaining unstable on numerous levels. The father claims that his

schedule was the reason he was unable to attend X’s appointments and missed his weekend visitation periods; although the evidence demonstrates that he works on a part-time basis. [ 17 ] Presently awaits the Director that the parents confirm their availabilities and transportation in order to go forth with the elaboration of a specific calendar.

Although there is an opening to discussing more extended visitation, there is expectancy that the parents demonstrate more consistency and openness as to the intervention. [ 18 ] An intervention plan meeting with the CMR is held on March 17, 2015 in order to discuss the services in place for X. Although both receiving an invitation, only the mother is present. Despite that the father mentions wanting to have involvement in the follow-up and attend all the meetings, he fails to present himself to any of these.

At a subsequent review meeting in July, both parents are absent. [ 19 ] Analysis and decision [ 20 ] The parties concur to the continuation of the situation of endangerment and the evidence confirms this conclusion.

The protective measures, namely the entrustment to a foster family, are the contentious issue. [ 21 ] Since the last judgment, the objectives of the intervention are clearly established: ➢ X benefits from visits with both his parents; ➢ X receives medical services; ➢ The mother clarifies her intentions in regards to her relationship with her son; ➢ The father be involved in X’s life; [ 22 ] These objectives remain largely unattained, save X receiving medical services, and this, mostly due to inconsistent parental involvement, both in the protective measures and the visitation. [ 23 ] The mother recognizes the situation and agrees with the orientation put forth by the Director. [ 24 ] The father contends that X’s interest dictate that the Court entrust him to his care.

After evaluation, the Court determines that the evidence does not support such a conclusion and this, for the following reasons. [ 25 ] Although the father repeatedly requests to become a more significant part of his son’s life, this fails to translate into any real investment and this, on a chronic basis. The facts demonstrate that although allowed regular visitation in virtue of a Superior Court judgment, he only sees his son sporadically.

This also translates to the situation since the Director’s involvement, the Court noting as follows in the previous judgment: [17] The father mentions to the caseworker wishing that his son be in his care should it not be possible to return him to his mother.

Yet, despite having the opportunity to actively participate in his son’s care, he is unavailable to accompany X to his medical appointments and only sees his son on a sporadic basis since the last Court order. [ 26 ] Also in the last judgment, the Court specifies that as to the father, the period of protective measures should also serve ‘’ to clarify his involvement and verify his capacity, and will, to be a significant part of his son’s life – the first step being that he shows consistency for regular visitation ’’ (paragraph 25). [ 27 ] Since the last order, the father’s implication is still minimal.

Although afforded all possible opportunities, he continues to demonstrate an inability to prioritize X’s needs by either an investment in his care or the protective measures. Yet, the father remains convinced that he can properly attend to his son’s significant needs. [ 28 ] This continual contradiction leaves the Court to question the level of the father’s commitment and/or concurrent capability to effectively understand X’s interests. As well, the profundity of the relationship between X and his father is also questionable, seeing the sporadic nature of their contacts over the last years.

[ 29 ] Such being the case, the Court determines that the situation of endangerment remains present and that neither parent is able to address X’s needs on a consistent and determined basis. Therefore, the extension of the protective measures corresponds to his best interests, as proposed by the Director. [ 30 ] The Court adds that the prognosis is increasingly sombre as to the possibility of the parents being able to make the significant changes necessary to permit a reintegration of X in his family environment.

Time is of the essence for X and if the parents do not remedy their collaboration to the intervention and clarify their investment in the next period of measures, the Court will be bound by law to contemplate an alternate life plan. [ 31 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 32 ] GRANTS the motion for extension; [ 33 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still in danger; [ 34 ] EXTENDS the Court order rendered on February 9, 2015; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the child be entrust to a foster family chosen by the Director of Youth Protection A namely the foster family of Mrs.

C; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or on their child's regard to put an end at the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be upon agreement between the parties; [ 38 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection for the establishment of a calendar of contacts to include phone calls and regular visitation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and his family; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child receives certain health care and health services, namely services from CMR and medical follow-up; [ 42 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents be present and active as to these follow-ups and services; [ 43 ] ALL THESE MEASURES for 9 months; [ 44 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre Jeunesse A for the execution of the measures. __________________________________ BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Frédérique Dupuy Attorney for the Petitioner Me Johanne Leduc Attorney for the mother Me Michel Robert Attorney for the father Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the child Date of hearing: September 29, 2015