2011 QCCQ 8042, 2011 QCCQ 8042

Protection de la jeunesse — 112081 2011 QCCQ 8042 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-024481-111 DATE: May 26, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the case of: X Born on […], 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 26, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the child declared compromised under

section 38, paragraph b) 2) as there is a serious risk that the parents cannot provide for the child's basic needs. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motion are the following: • The mother has seven other children, none of whom are in her care; • Mother’s first six children currently reside in the province A; • The seventh child, X, is currently under a youth protection court order for foster home placement, the decision having been rendered on November 26, 2010; • The mother has a longstanding history of involvement with the Children’s Aid Society A for issues of drugs and alcohol abuse, neglect and physical abuse towards her other children; • The child’s biological father, Mr.

A, also has a history of drugs and alcohol abuse; • The mother has a history of involvement in relationships fraught with conjugal violence; • Both mother and Mr. A have a history of residential instability and transient lifestyle; • The mother also acknowledges that she used marijuana on one occasion during her pregnancy with X back in September 2010; • The mother and Mr. A have a conflictual and volatile relationship and they are both verbally aggressive towards each other;

• The mother has had five different residences during her pregnancy with X; • The mother is currently living with a friend who has a history of substance abuse issues; • In the past, the mother was involved in various in-patient drug rehabilitation programs and on certain occasions, was asked to leave the centres due to her aggressive behaviour towards other residents or staff members; • The mother at times presents as emotionally unstable and she has an anger management problem. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to foster care until November 26, 2011.

Furthermore, that a social follow-up be provided to the family for the same period. [ 5 ] The parents admit the compromission and the majority of the facts alleged in the motion. However, they are asking the Court to order interim measures for a period of two to three months, during which time they want to find an apartment and for the mother to complete her parenting class and continue her therapy. [ 6 ] The mother testifies that she started a weekly individual therapy in April 2011, with a therapist from the Women's shelter. She is also participating in parenting classes at Centre A since two weeks.

This course will be completed by June 16, 2011. The mother states that she is currently living with a friend and is looking for an apartment with the father. She says that she reconciled with the father last week. She sees her children twice weekly and says she never misses a visit. [ 7 ] The father testifies that he has reconciled with the mother and that they filled out a form for his name to appear on the child's birth certificate, copy of which is filed under P-1.

The father states that he has not participated in an anger management program because he cannot afford it and that, in any case, the money would be better spent on his children. He acknowledges having a pending criminal charge for assault on his ex girl friend. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Mr. [social worker 1], case worker, and read the reports that the Director filed as proof of the child’s situation.

The couple’s other child, X, is currently under foster care placement until November 26, 2011. [ 9 ] With the consent of all parties, the parental capacity assessment reports of the parents prepared by Mr. Peter Kelly, psychologist, in July 2010, for the case of X were filed. The psychologist had recommended that the mother participate in an individual psychotherapy with a female psychologist with experience in treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and addiction.

As for the father, the psychologist had concerns that the father may have difficulty in providing the child with a stable and consistently healthy home environment, due to his unstable lifestyle over the last seven years. [ 10 ] The evidence reveals that the parents are not in a position to regain custody of their child at this time. The parents’ relationship is volatile and they have only reconciled since last week. They currently do not have an apartment or the effects that are needed to care for an infant.

Furthermore, the mother has not completed her parenting class and has only started her individual therapy in April 2011. As for the father, he has not participated in an anger management program, although he had stated in November 2010, that he intended to do so. The father also has a pending criminal charge for assault following an incident of conjugal violence with his ex-girl friend. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to foster care until November 26, 2011. This child needs stability and a safe home environment.

Fortunately, he has integrated the same foster home as his brother X and the foster parents are in a position to answer to his needs. [ 12 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are compromised. [ 13 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES compromised the security and development of the child, X; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be placed in foster care until November 26, 2011; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including supervision as deemed necessary; [ 18 ] RECOMMENDS the parents follow through with the recommendations made by the psychologist, Mr.

Peter Kelly; [ 19 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the mother has started an individual therapy and parenting classes; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the father participate in an anger management program; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to submit to random drug testing at the request of DYP and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents agree to submit to random drug testing; [ 22 ] ORDERS both parents to ensure that the child is not expose to any verbal or physical violence; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents address their health issues; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to contact the professionals and medical treating professionals of the parents in order to be informed of their progress and attendance;

[ 25 ] ORDERS the father to keep the Director of Youth Protection informed of all the developments and Court dates concerning his pending criminal case for assault; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother keep DYP informed of her means of contraception; [ 27 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family until November 26, 2011; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of Youth and Family Centres A, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 29 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed 30 May, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Marie-Josée Paiement (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Alec Flexer (Counsel for the child) Me Jean-Hervé Thomas (Counsel for the mother) Me Daniel Bouchard (Counsel for the father) Date of hearing: May 26, 2011