2012 QCCQ 8893, 2012 QCCQ 8893

Protection de la jeunesse — 121104 2012 QCCQ 8893 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos: 640-41-001326-104 640-41-001327-102 DATE: February 6, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A Applicant and X, born on [...] Y, born on [...] Children and A Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is asking the Court to review the decision rendered by Honourable Ellen Paré, J.C.Q. on November 30, 2010 whereby, in particular, the latter declared endangered the security and development of the two children and ordered their foster placement for a period of one year with possible reintegration after three months if the situation allowed. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the children are absent but represented.

As to the mother, she is present with her counsel. [ 3 ] The father is absent and no one is acting on his behalf. [ 4 ] Incidentally, in this respect it is to be noted that the birth certificates indicate an unknown father but, upon reading the file, it appears that he is very clearly identified and that he was in fact, at least in the past, present in the children’s life. [ 5 ] The applicant, in her procedure, is therefore asking for the continuation of the foster placement for another year.

She agrees to a possible reintegration in six months, if the situation allows. [ 6 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the mother agrees with the measure sought, except for the length that she considers too long.

In her view, a placement for six to nine months would be adequate. [ 7 ] By and large, there is no real difference between what the applicant is requiring and what seems appropriate to the mother. [ 8 ] The case starts in the fall 2010, after a report was received by the Director of Youth Protection who decides to intervene on the basis that, in all likelihood, the environment where the children are living, with their father then, could be harmful. [ 9 ] Specifically, the residence of Mr.

B is a place where several people get together on a regular basis to drink and do drugs. [ 10 ] In addition, it is suspected that, at this very place, some violent events and even sexual assaults may have happened. [ 11 ] The father, who himself is a user of the substances mentioned above, admits that the children were then exposed to improper behaviours and that his house is not a safe environment for them. [ 12 ] As to the mother, she has had but very few contacts with her daughters since 2008 and has shown only very mitigated interest in them.

It is far from certain that, still today, she could provide proper care to her children and see to their safety and development. [ 13 ] These circumstances have led to the foster placement of the two girls for a period of one year with possible reintegration in three months, as above-mentioned. [ 14 ] Now Court intervention is again requested based on the allegations that there have been no changes overall and that the

endangered situation still prevails for the same reasons. [ 15 ] From the evidence heard and the admissions made at the hearing, it is established out of the balance of probabilities that it is actually the case and that, consequently, the motion can be allowed. [ 16 ] Concerning the proposed measure, the Director of Youth Protection is suggesting a foster family placement again, in the hope that both mother and father will be able to regain control over the situation and provide their children with a safe and healthy environment. [ 17 ] As to the length of the placement, one year seems acceptable insofar as reintegration with the parents could take place at an earlier time, if the situation allows. [ 18 ] In the absence of the father, the Court considers fit to order that he be expressly informed of this judgment and of his right to ask for a possible review of the decision if, here again, circumstances allow. [ 19 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X and Y are still endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS the placement of the children in a foster home for a period of one year with possible reintegration after six months if the situation allows; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to inform Mr.

C this judgment by serving him a copy; [ 24 ] MAINTAINS all the conclusions not obsolete rendered in the previous judgment; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C.; [ 26 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Cassandra Neptune Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the children Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: January 17, 2012