2017 QCCQ 5109, 2017 QCCQ 5109

Protection de la jeunesse — 172299 2017 QCCQ 5109 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] « Youth Division » N° : 525-41-032058-174 DATE : February 14, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on [...], 2016 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) and interim measures ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on February 14, 2017. Introduction [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that there is a serious risk that the parents are not providing for the child’s basic needs.

The Director alleges that the parents have a longstanding history of drug consumption. [ 3 ] On September 22, 2016, the parents signed an agreement on voluntary measures in order to receive ongoing support from the Director and other community organisations; [ 4 ] The Director alleges that the parents did not collaborate fully and that they resume their drug consumption. [ 5 ] On January 4, 2017, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to the paternal grandmother. [ 6 ] On January 6, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted, on a provisional basis, the child to the care of the paternal grandmother, at the exclusion of the parents. [ 7 ] Today, the Director recommends that a three month interim judgement be rendered, entrusting the child to the paternal grandmother.

Both parents are in agreement with this plan. Question in litigation [ 8 ] Is the common suggestion made in respect of the child’s rights and interest? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] The child tested positive for cocaine at birth. [ 10 ] The mother did not receive any prenatal care.

[ 11 ] The parents have a significant history of drug consumption. They both consume cocaine. [ 12 ] On September 22, 2016, the parents signed an agreement on voluntary measures in order to receive ongoing support from the Director and other community organisations; [ 13 ] The family resided with the paternal grandmother, Ms.

C. [ 14 ] The parents received support from Foster Pavilion and participated in a parenting group at the CLSC. [ 15 ] On December 21, 2016, the parents did not attend the requested random drug testing. [ 16 ] On January 4, 2017, the grandmother informed the educator, Ms. [Social Worker 1], that the parents had had a relapse for several weeks.

The parents had moved to their apartment across the street, while she had continued to care for the child. [ 17 ] On the same date, immediate protective measures were invoked and the child was entrusted to the paternal grandmother. [ 18 ] On January 6, 2017, the Tribunal entrusted, on a provisional basis, the child to the care of the paternal grandmother, at the exclusion of the parents. [ 19 ] Since that date, despite numerous attempts, the youth protection worker was unable to contact the parents.

She received a phone message on January 16, 2017 from the mother regarding contacts with the child. [ 20 ] The youth protection worker testified regarding her plan for the contacts between the parents and the child. Contacts could increase in duration and frequency depending on the parents’ collaboration, the quality of care they provide during the contacts and the child’s reaction to the contacts.

She asks that the parents be sober during the contacts, that they be transparent during her follow up and that they undergo random drug testing. [ 21 ] The youth protection worker presents that an interim decision would permit a better assessment of the parents’ motivation. [ 22 ] The paternal grandmother, Ms. C, is able and available to continue caring for the child. She ensures that the child’s needs are met and collaborates with the Director. [ 23 ] The parents’ recent relapse is troubling. They will have to stabilize their own situation before any reintegration could be considered for the child.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is in danger (

section 38 b) 2 o of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 25 ] SETS the continuation of the hearing on May 23, 2017 in room 1.01 in front the undersigned; [ 26 ] ORDERS that a French Tamil interpreter be present on May 23, 2017; [ 27 ] In the meantime: [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of her paternal grandmother; [ 29 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the paternal grandmother will be evaluated to become a foster family; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and her parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection and TAKES ACT of the plan that was proposed to Court ; [ 31 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the parents resume their treatment at Foster Pavilion for as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents, as they had agreed, submit to random drug testing at the request of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents not be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol while in the presence of the child; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and her family. [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Signed on March 6, 2017 /cd Mtre Edith Zavodni Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Luce James Counsel for the child

Mtre Younes Ameur Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: February 14, 2017