2017 QCCQ 18492, 2017 QCCQ 18492

Protection de la jeunesse — 178918 2017 QCCQ 18492 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000257-172 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2012 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 38 and 75 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection of A (D.Y.P.) has filed an application to have the security and development of X, born on […], 2012 be declared in danger due to the parent’s neglect to provide her proper supervision and the serious risk that the parents are not providing the child’s basic needs, in regards of

section 38 b) 1 o iii and 2 o of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] At the hearing, the child is represented by Me Constantin Kiryakidis.

The parent are present, represented by Me Marie-Josée Ayoub and Me Adelia Ferreira assists the applicant, Mrs. [Social Worker 1]. [ 3 ] With the admissions made by the parents, the Court considers that there is a preponderance of evidence that: − The child was placed in a foster home for a month on May 15, 2017 and an agreement on voluntary measures was signed on June 14, 2017; − The child remained with her parents and they agreed to remain sober at all time and to seek for services for their parental issues; − On August 26, an intervention was made to the family home at around 4 a.m. and a call was received by the emergency social services; − The mother had consumed alcohol.

The father was intoxicated in company of other adults also under the influence. The child was present in the home. − The parents admitted that they consumed alcohol on two other occasions since the voluntary measures agreement; − The parents have not engaged in treatment to address their alcohol issues; − The mother has been engaging in counseling and the father was on a waiting list to meet with a therapist; − Since August 26, 2017 the child is placed in a foster family. [ 4 ] With those admissions, the Court declares the security and development of the child in danger for the motives alleged under

section 38 b) 1 o iii and 2 o of the Youth Protection Act. [ 5 ] On the applicable measures, the social worker testifies and filed a social study.

[ 6 ] As mentioned previously, the parents just started to seek for services. The father met a therapist last month and he expects to met him every months. The mother also started to meet a therapist. The parents are now sober and they are ready to attend treatment. They want to attend two programs offered in October and November in the Aera A.

The parents do now acknowledge that they need therapies and support to change their lifestyles and to work on their issues. [ 7 ] They declare that they have good motivation and that they really want their daughter back with them. [ 8 ] Considering the whole evidence, the seriousness of the parent’s problems, their motivation and their new collaboration, the Court will allow them a progressive reinsertion of their child after four months of sobriety following the last Native treatment they will attend, scheduled in November 2017. [ 9 ] So if they succeed to maintain four months of sobriety after November and if they are still collaborating actively with their therapist and the social worker, progressive reinsertion might started in April 2018. [ 10 ] Meanwhile, the parents are allowed to have regular and supervised contacts with their daughter.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] ALLOWS the application; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on […], 2012 are in danger in regards of

section 38 b) 1 o iii and 2 o of the Youth Protection Act; [ 13 ] ORDERS her placement in the foster family of her paternal grandmother for a year; [ 14 ] AUTHORISES a progressive reintegration of the child with her parents after four months of sobriety period, starting at the end of the Native workshop in November 2017; [ 15 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to favour and supervise the visit rights and access of the parents with the child as for the modalities, the frequency, the duration and the presence of a third party if required; [ 16 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to seek help for their personal issues; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS the parents to attend treatment and/or therapy or to continue such therapy; [ 18 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her parents for one year; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Constantin Kiryakidis Attorney for the child Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the parents Date of hearing: October 11, 2017