2017 QCCQ 18489, 2017 QCCQ 18489

Protection de la jeunesse — 178915 2017 QCCQ 18489 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000252-173 614-41-000253-171 614-41-000255-176 DATE: November 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2007 Y, born on […], 2004 Z, born on […], 2003 [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.) asks the Court to declare the security and the development of Z, 14 years old, X, 7 years old and Y, 13 years old, children of A and B, in danger because of the parent’s neglect to supervise the children and the serious risk that the children’s needs be neglected by their parents (section 38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ). [ 2 ] At the hearing the father is present and represented by Me Marie-Josée Ayoub.

The mother is also present and represented by Me Michel Grenier and the children by Me Constantin Kiryakidis.

Me Camille Champeval represents the applicant. [ 3 ] The evidence is constituted of the admissions of the parties and a picture of the mother taken on September 18, 2017. [ 4 ] It is proved beyond balance of probabilities that the situation of these children was judiciarised on July 7, 2016, that Y and Z were placed in foster families for 9 months with a social follow-up for a year, and that X was placed in a reception centre for 9 months with a year social follow-up. [ 5 ] Consequently they were reintegrated back to their mother’s care on April 2017 between the 7 and the 24, as the mother had remained sober.

The social follow-up finished on July 7 even if the mother’s situation was fragile at the time. [ 6 ] But on the same month of July 2017, the mother and her partner C relapsed and started consuming alcohol and doing drugs. [ 7 ] On July 11, 2017 the D.Y.P. received a signalement to the effect that the mother was consuming alcohol at home, along with other adults, in presence of the children X and some information reveals that the mother and her spouse consumed on numerous occasions during July. [ 8 ] The child X, who completed a substance abuse treatment during his placement at the reception centre, stated that he saw his mother drinks and consuming cocaine. [ 9 ] The frequency of the mother’s cocaine consumption remains unknown.

[ 10 ] When the police was called to intervene at home on July 20, 2017 because of an altercation between the mother and her spouse, they founded cocaine on the premises. They were drinking when the police arrived. Mr. C was arrested that day. [ 11 ] On June 21, 2017 the children visited their father in Town A. The father had been drinking during the visit. [ 12 ] Immediate protective measures were taken and the children were placed in foster home. The day after, July 13, the parents agreed for the children to remain placed for 30 days.

Since, they are maintained placed by provisional judgment. [ 13 ] Considering the evidence, the Court declares their security and development in danger because of the parent’s neglecting in their supervision of the children and because with such issues the parents neglect the children needs (section 38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2 o of the Youth Protection act ). [ 14 ] The mother still has serious problems of consumption of alcohol and drugs, does not priories her children’ needs, exposes them to her violent relationship with her spouse.

She behaves with immaturity and does not realises the consequences of such behaviour on her children. [ 15 ] The children’s father is not involved very much with the children. [ 16 ] On the applicable measures, the father and the social worker’s testify. A social study is filed. [ 17 ] The father attended therapy in Town B last February 2017 for a month. Since he is able to control his consumption. He works and have a

schedule of 14 days of work followed by 14 days off. [ 18 ] Up to now, he was not much involved with his children but now he wants to meet and visit them regularly. [ 19 ] Both parents agree with the recommendations. The mother was victim of another violence act from her spouse in September, lost her house for insalubrity and is back with her parents. None of the parent can assume the children. [ 20 ] X returned in foster home he knew, having been placed there in the past. He is in Town C. He often has aggressive behaviour.

He still has issues to work on. [ 21 ] Y returned also in a foster family she knew in Town D. She behaves well and she attends school regularly. She often feels insecure. As X, even if she is angry at her mother, she misses her. [ 22 ] For Z, he is now in a foster family in Town A. He behaves well now but he was not when he arrived. He had lot of aggressivity then.

The stability of the foster parents and their attentive care help a lot. [ 23 ] These children have been victim of lot of neglect from their parents and witnessed lot of violent altercations between their parents and since their parents separation, between their mother and her partner.

They need to evaluate in a stable, secure home with caring adult. [ 24 ] Unfortunately they cannot be placed in the same foster family and not in the same community but they reintegrate well known foster families and they feel well-being. [ 25 ] As all the parties agree with the recommendations; [ 26 ] As they are appropriate for now; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the applications; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children X, born on […], 2007, Y, born on […], 2004 and Z, born on […], 2003 are in danger, under

section 38 b) 1 o iii and b) 2 o of the Youth Protection act; [ 29 ] ORDERS their placement in foster family for 1 year; [ 30 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to supervise the contacts between the children and the parents as for the modalities, the frequency, the duration and the degree of supervision; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the children have regular contact; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seeks help through the social services for their personal issues; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child X be evaluated by a psychologist and beneficiate of a follow-up if required; [ 34 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober in presence of the children; [ 35 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents for 1 year;

[ 36 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 37 ] ORDERS the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to evaluate the D.Y.P. intervention in those situations; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children 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 children Me Camille Champeval Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the father Date of hearing: October 12, 2017