2011 QCCQ 10709, 2011 QCCQ 10709

Protection de la jeunesse — 112491 2011 QCCQ 10709 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-000980-075 DATE: May 26, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENANT 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in city A APPLICANT AND X, born on […], 2000 CHILD AND A MOTHER AND B INTERESTED PARTY ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is submitting a motion for review in which he is asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X and of her sister and brother are still threatened. [ 2 ] As of April 7, 2010, the honourable Jacques R.

Roy, J.C.Q., rendered a judgment regarding the three children. The conclusions read as follows. [ 3 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 4 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X , born on […], 2000, and of Y , born on […], 2002, and of Z , born on […], 2008, are still considered to be endangered in accordance with the Youth Protection Act. AS FAR AS MEASURES ARE CONCERNED: [ 5 ] ORDERS the three (3) children to be entrusted to their mother; [ 6 ] ORDERS the mother to maintain her soberness in the presence of her children; [ 7 ] ORDERS the parents and the children to take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Tribunal; [ 8 ] ORDERS the contacts between the father and Z to be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection and the father to be sober during these visits; [ 9 ] ORDERS that a person working for a Child and Youth Protection Centre provide aid, counsel and assistance to the mother and the father of Z and the children X and Y for a period of one (1) year; [ 10 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the three (3) children, to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C. who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 11 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order; [ 12 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one (1) year. [ 13 ] Basically, the reasons for the endangered situation arose from the serious addiction problems displayed by Ms.A and her spouse B. [ 14 ] However, as the mother’s behaviour and will seemed to enable her to assume responsibility for her children, many efforts were made to keep them in their family.

[ 15 ] All these efforts were quite successful, for at least a period of time where Ms. A was able to control her drinking and where it was considered possible for the children to be back permanently in their family environment and for the Director of Youth Protection to withdraw. [ 16 ] Unfortunately, despite her good will and efforts, the mother was unable to remain reasonably sober.

Then the applicant had to seize the Court of the current motion. [ 17 ] The problems arise from the fact that, when intoxicated, the parents are unable to provide adequately for the children’s well- being. [ 18 ] Furthermore, they are likely to act in aggressive or violent ways with the children, as some accidents have proven. [ 19 ] The parties acknowledge the type and scope of the problem before the Court and they consider the motion and a placement appropriate. [ 20 ] But they disagree on the length of the placement [ 21 ] For that matter, the Director of Youth Protection is asking for one year with the expressed intent to look into the possibility of a long-term measure. [ 22 ] As to the mother, she considers that, once she becomes permanently sober, she will be able to have the children with her again.

She is then asking the Court to set a limit to the placement for the time period she needs to undertake and complete an appropriate therapeutic process. [ 23 ] As a matter of fact, the mother’s testimony reveals that there is no real debate as to the length of the placement since the process she is indicating the Court requires a period of time similar to that specified by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 24 ] Indeed, Ms. A plans to start treatment next August for six weeks. [ 25 ] She believes that she would then be able to take her children back six to eight months after returning to the community.

This leads to a result similar to that suggested by the applicant. [ 26 ] Consequently, the Court considers fit to order a twelve-month placement starting on March 29 with possible reintegration in the last two months. [ 27 ] FOR THESES REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 29 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of the child are still endangered; [ 30 ] ORDERS the foster care placement of X, born on […], 2000, for a period of twelve months starting on March 29, 2011 with possible reintegration in the last two months; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the Director of Youth Protection supervise contacts between the child and Ms.

A and Mr.

B; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parties collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS the parties to meet with the Social Services to seek help for their personal issues and the mother to address her drinking problem; [ 34 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the family for a period of one year; [ 35 ] ORDERS the parties to abstain from consuming alcohol in the presence of the child; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the child’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measure; [ 37 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the enactment. __________________________________ JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyers for the applicant Me Jean-Claude Latraverse Centre communautaire juridique A Lawyers for the child Me Michel Salomon Lawyer for the mother

Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the interested party Date of hearing: March 29, 2011