2013 QCCQ 14406, 2013 QCCQ 14406

Protection de la jeunesse — 134972 2013 QCCQ 14406 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: September 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [ INTERVENANT 1], Youth Protection Worker duly authorised by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Board of Health and Social Services of A PETITIONER AND X 640-41-001623-138 Born on [...] AND Y 640-41-001624-136 Born on [...] CHILDREN AND A MOTHER AND B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X and Y , both born on [...] , declared endangered due to parental neglect and psychological ill-treatment. [ 2 ] The mother is present and represented by M e Claude Beaudet and M e Daniel Ouellette acts on behalf of both children.

M e Camille Provencher represents the applicant. The father, despite the fact that he received a copy of the procedures, is not present nor represented by counsel. The evidence reveals that he has not been involved in the twins' lives for many years. Both the mother and M e Ouellette ask the Court to proceed in the absence of the father. [ 3 ] The mother does not contest that the security and development of the children are endangered.

She disagrees with some of the allegations and explains others. [ 4 ] The evidence reveals that on February 25, 2013, an agreement under voluntary measures was signed by the parties. In that document, the mother acknowledges the fact that on February 21, she was, with her common-law spouse, drinking and that one of the twins brought her little brother, aged four months, to one of her aunt's. When the emergency worker checked, nobody was at home. The house was in great disorder and there was no food at all in the refrigerator.

So, the mother agreed to meet with the A worker in order to make a decision to attend a treatment centre for her alcohol addiction. She also accepted to make appointments to meet with the psychologist and to provide a reliable babysitter for the children when necessary. She also acceded to be and remain sober when in the presence of the children. [ 5 ] On June 22, 2013, a new report was received by the Director of Youth Protection stating that the children were left alone at their residence.

The common-law spouse explained that the mother was out drinking and he wanted to find her, so he sent the children to stay with extended family and he finally went drinking too. The Court has no evidence regarding the agreement reached between the father and the extended family about the length of his absence. When the emergency worker went to the mother's residence, the children were there without the proper supervision of a responsible adult. [ 6 ] Also, earlier the same day, the firefighters had to intervene at the mother's residence.

The Director of youth protection alleges that the mother was under the influence of alcohol and had forgotten about her cooking. The mother denies that fact and adds that it must have been someone else who went to her house to cook. She cannot provide the Court with a name. Both situations raise concerns in the Court's opinion.

Either the mother was intoxicated that day and the firefighters had to intervene or a stranger went to their house, which is preoccupying given the fact that the children are sometimes left alone there. [ 7 ] The mother admits that the same day, before the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection, the grandmother had brought the child, Z , to her house after finding him outside, left alone in a stroller.

[ 8 ] Since the signature of the agreement on voluntary measures, the collaboration of the mother with the Youth Protection Worker has been irregular.

However, since the last report made to the Director of Youth Protection, the collaboration of the mother with the Youth Protection worker has improved. [ 9 ] Since the same date, the mother and her common-law spouse were able to abstain from alcohol consumption. [ 10 ] All the parties agree with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection asking that the children remain with the mother and that help be provided to the family. [ 11 ] The mother has to resolve her problem with alcohol consumption. Both X and Y need supervision by a responsible adult.

As demonstrated during the last summer, the mother is able to refrain from alcohol consumption and collaborate with the Youth Protection Director. Therefore, both children can be maintained with her as recommended by the Social Worker. [ 12 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y , both born on [...] , are endangered pursuant to sections 38

b) i), 38 b) 2) and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their mother; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the mother meet with the A worker in order to make a decision to attend a treatment for her alcohol addiction and ORDERS the mother to comply with the recommendations made by the A worker; [ 16 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to both children and their parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the mother be and remain sober when in the presence of the children; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the mother inform the Social Worker in advance of any period of time when the children will be under the care of a babysitter and that she disclose the identity of the babysitter; [ 19 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Provencher Lawyer for the petitioner M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the children M e Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: August 20, 2013