2015 QCCQ 19670, 2015 QCCQ 19670

Protection de la jeunesse — 158050 2015 QCCQ 19670 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-029493-152; 525-41-029494-150; 525-41-029495-157 DATE : August 27, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X , born on [...], 2007 Y , born on [...], 2010 Z , born on [...], 2011 THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on August 27 th , 2015; [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of the situation of three young children (now aged 7 1/2 , 5 and 3 1/2 year- old) alleging that their security and development are compromised due to neglect (parents not meeting their basic physical needs and failing to provide them with appropriate supervision or support) and physical abuse (inappropriate means of discipline).

The Director is asking that the children be entrusted to a foster home for a period of six months and that aid, counsel and assistance, along with other youth protective measures, be provided for a period of one year. [ 3 ] The mother admits essentially all the facts alleged in support of the motion and recognizes that the security and development of her children are compromised for the reasons alleged by the Director.

Nonetheless, the mother wants that the children be entrusted back to her care and claims that she can provide for her children with the help and support of the Director. [ 4 ] The father admits some of the facts alleged in the motion but ignores the situation in regards to school attendance of his two older children. He admits that the security and development of his children are compromised but would like for the children to be entrusted to their mother's care.

He offers his help to the mother and is ready to continue his collaboration with the Director. [ 5 ] On behalf of the children, no admissions are made in regards to the facts alleged in support of the motion. After hearing the

evidence, their attorney is of the opinion that the mother is not in a position to receive, right away, her children. The attorney suggests rather that the children remain entrusted to a foster family for an interim period of three (3) months while contacts between the children and their parents be favoured. CONTEXT [ 6 ] The evidence reveals that since the parents separated in 2011, the children have resided with their mother, seeing their father occasionally. [ 7 ] On or about January 18 th , 2015, the mother received a notice to the effect that she was evicted from her apartment due to unpaid rent.

Despite the notice, the mother was unable to make proper arrangements and find an apartment where she and her children could move. [ 8 ] At that time, the family apartment was observed to be disorganized, cluttered, insufficiently furnished and infested with cockroaches. [ 9 ] On January 22 nd , 2015, with the help of the youth protection worker, the mother and the children were relocated at the YMCA shelter. [ 10 ] Shortly after, the mother was asked to leave the shelter as it was felt that she was not taking appropriate steps to find housing for the family.

On February 10 th , 2015, the mother relocated with the family in another shelter. [ 11 ] Although the mother was expected to search for and find an apartment suitable for the family, the family was once more asked to leave that second shelter on July 1 st , 2015.

A new signalement received on June 19 th , 2015 led to the children being removed from the mother's care and entrusted to a foster family even before the expected date of eviction. [ 12 ] Although the mother has found an apartment where she feels the family could live, almost two months after the fact, she still did not have all of her belongings and all the necessities to receive her children. [ 13 ] The evidence also reveals that the two older children, of school age, are frequently absent from school or late attending school.

The mother explains that situation by claiming that it is difficult for her to get the children to school on time due to recurrent health problems (back pain). In addition, school officials report that it is difficult to reach the mother. [ 14 ] Even when the mother and the children were fostered at the shelter, the children have, at times, been absent from school. [ 15 ] The mother has also acknowledged spanking the children and hitting them with a ruler on their hands, as a form of discipline.

She also has used threats to hit them with a belt, as a form of discipline. [ 16 ] Since the involvement of the Director, the mother has certainly tried to implement the suggestions made by the Director. Unfortunately, improvements regarding the children attendance at school have been minimal. Finding a suitable apartment occurred only following the removal of the children from their mother's care and the eviction from the second shelter. [ 17 ] Two attempts were made for the Family Preservation Program to be involved with the family.

As the mother did not attend the second part of the assessment, the involvement of the program was terminated. [ 18 ] Services from the community are available for the mother who seems to want to take advantage of the resources. The Côte-des- Neiges Black Community Association (CDNBCA) as well as the African Canadian Development and Prevention Network (ACDPN) have been assisting the mother, since the end of July, in preparing her new apartment and developing a long-term support network for her.

A referral was made for the mother to participate in a parent group offered by the ACDPN in preparation for another program (Strengthening black families) that will be offered in the fall of 2015. [ 19 ] The mother has recently begun to see a private therapist to work on personal issues. [ 20 ] It appears that the mother can certainly mobilise herself in situation of crisis in order to try to be in control of the situation.

It also appears that it is difficult for her to sustain her efforts and to maintain appropriate housing, ensure that the children attend school and assume, most of the time alone, the responsibility of her children. [ 21 ] It is only occasionally that the father has been able to assume his share of responsibility and assuming care for the children.

It is hoped that, with the help of the Director, both parents will be able to support themselves in order to assume fully their responsibilities and ensure that living arrangements and supervision of the children are appropriate. [ 22 ] The Director has established that intervention is necessary in order to put an end to the situation that led to the involvement of the Director. The recommendations meet the needs of the children and are in their best interest.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 24 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to a foster home for a period of six (6) months; [ 25 ] ALLOWS the Director of Youth Protection to plan an integration four (4) months before the end of the entrustment period;

[ 26 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection set modalities of contacts that would favour frequent contacts with each parent; [ 27 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and with the services that will be provided; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children X and Y attend school daily and on time; [ 29 ] ORDERS that Z attend daycare daily and on time; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS to the mother to follow through on the recommendations of the parental capacity assessment; [ 31 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to attend individual therapy; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that Family Preservation Program be considered for the family; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family, including the services of an educator; [ 34 ] THE WHOLE , for a period of one (1) year; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 36 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer if necessary. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Georgia Limperis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Laurence Marceau Attorney for the children Me Jean-Hervé Thomas Attorney for the mother Me François Pelletier Attorney for the father Date of hearing : August 27 th , 2015