2014 QCCQ 14655, 2014 QCCQ 14655

Protection de la jeunesse — 142868 2014 QCCQ 14655 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000636-142 & 610-41-000637-140 DATE: June 12, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at […] Town A, district A, […] Applicant -and- X, residing at […], district A, […] Y, residing […], district A, […] Children -and- MRS A, domiciled at […] at Town A, district A, […] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled at […] at Town A, district A, […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review and extension of a decision under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act concerning X, born on […], 2006 and Y, born on […], 2010. [ 2 ] Upon the parties request the Court held a common inquiry. Both children are represented by counsel, although only X is present during a part of the hearing. The parents are also present and represented by their lawyer. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The parties agree that the security and development of both children remain endangered and that the parents have both made efforts to remain sober. The parents' sobriety constitutes new facts in accordance with

section 95 Y.P.A. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection who had put in place life projects for both children now believes that reintegration of the children with the parents might eventually be possible. The applicant nevertheless requests that the children remain in the care of third parties for a period of six months for further consolidation of the parents' personal achievements. For their part, the parents believe that the children could reintegrate progressively their family environment at the end of the school year.

THE FACTS [ 5 ] The evidence consists of the testimony of the applicant, both parents and the maternal grandmother, two revision reports as well as letters and certificates relevant to the parents' personal situations. [ 6 ] Before going any further, it is important to underline the reasons at the root of the implication of the Director of Youth Protection which led to different court orders concerning both children. [ 7 ] The family has been receiving services from the Director of Youth Protection since 2012.

In April 2012, the parties signed an agreement on voluntary measures following which both children were entrusted to a maternal aunt for one year. [ 8 ] On April 19, 2013, Lemoine J. declared the security and development of the children endangered due a serious risk of neglect

because of the parents' chronic and longstanding addiction to drugs and alcohol. This prevented them to provide minimal supervision and care to their children. The mother had attended a treatment center, but relapsed not long after and failed to follow through on aftercare. Their residential instability also impaired their capacities to care for X and Y.

Both children were then entrusted to their maternal aunt for a period of six months. [ 9 ] On October 9, 2013, Bédard J. considered that the security and development of the children remained endangered and ordered their placement for a period of six months, in order to elaborate life projects for them. In his judgment, Bédard J. takes notice of the parents' lack of motivation to remain sober and stabilize their living conditions and budget issues. X was then entrusted to a great uncle and his wife. As for Y, she was placed in a new foster home. [ 10 ] We are now at the end of the measures ordered last October.

After the last court order, the parents continued for some time the same lifestyle regarding alcohol and drugs. The father would go in the town B on a regular basis even though this setting triggered his craving for alcohol. The parents' relationship was also unstable and marked by break ups and renewals. They were very discreet about their marital problems. The parents' financial affairs were also a cause for concern. During visits with the children, the parents often needed money for food or gas.

In light of their failure to follow trough with steps to come to terms with their addictions, the previous youth protection worker had informed the parents of his intentions to carry out the children's life projects. [ 11 ] The applicant took over the family's situation in January 2014 and was able to build a trusting relationship with the parents. Soon after her involvement with the parents, the applicant sensed that they were ready for change. Respectively in January and February, Mrs A and Mr B decided to quit drinking.

After going through withdrawal symptoms, the father and the mother started attending AA meetings on a regular basis. The father then attended a closed treatment facility and completed the program. [ 12 ] Both parents are now following aftercare counselling with a [Program A] worker. They are also receiving psychological services on a monthly basis. Since moving back to Town A, they have found a house. The efforts to change their patterns have also included involvement in numerous community activities.

Moreover, they completed a parenting program. [ 13 ] In her testimony, the applicant does not hesitate to underline the parents' numerous personal accomplishments and their positive response to her intervention. However, the parents' financial situation remains a cause for concern as they cannot make ends meet even without the children. She is willing to continue to address this issue with the parents. [ 14 ] On behalf of the Director of Youth Protection the applicant is now ready to change her previous recommendation regarding the children's placement until majority.

She believes that a progressive reintegration of the children in their family environment can be foreseen. In support of her recommendation to maintain the children for the next six months either in foster care or with extended family, she adds that, in the best interest of the children, it is paramount to ensure sobriety maintenance before reintegration. [ 15 ] Since last October, Y has been living in a foster home in Town A and is adapting well to this environment.

She is suffering from speech delay due to the many primary languages she has been exposed to ([language A] – French – English). [ 16 ] As for X, he is living with the mother's uncle also in Town A and seems to be a healthy and happy boy, although he clearly expresses missing his parents. DECISION [ 17 ] The Court does not doubt the parents' motivation to change their lives or put into question the parents' achievements thus far. The Court was particularly moved by their willingness to change.

However, one cannot put aside the fact that their alcohol and drug abuse problem was chronic and that it has greatly impacted the children that have been under the care of others for more than two years.

To that effect, Bédard J. best summarized the interest of a child in a context of cyclic alcohol consumption by the parents: For the Court, a sobriety period is at the most, a sign of improvement, and can never be considered as a safeguard against the risk of danger for the children, unless it can be maintained for a significant period of time and unless it is linked to other services such as support, therapy and guidance.

Excessive and cyclic alcohol consumption has deeper roots than availability of alcohol and in that sense, it can only be considered as a symptom of inner discomfort in relation with past history of the protagonist.

If the Court sees necessary to specify the above, it is because the analysis of the child’s interest to reintegrate his family is often based on the sobriety of the parents over a short period of time and bypasses the need of the child to receive continuous care in a stable environment. [1] [ 18 ] Thus, the Court must take into account the best interest of the children and cannot allow the children to be used as motivation for the parents' sobriety maintenance.

The willingness to remain sober for a significant period of time must come from within and not from vulnerable beings, such as children. [ 19 ] Considering the family's history, the Court is of the opinion that the period of placement suggested by the applicant is more than reasonable. A premature reintegration of the children in their family environment would be devastating for the children's development. Should the parents' relapse, it would not only provoke instability but it would leave scars in regards to the children's capacity to bond and trust their caregivers.

To be blunt, the emotional development of X and Y is at stake. [ 20 ] Following

section 91.1 Y.P.A. the maximum periods of placement have expired.

Section 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act also provides that the court may disregard the maximum foster care period if it is expected that the child will be returned to his family on the short term. The Court believes that the legal delays must be disregarded in order to work towards reintegration of the children in their family setting within the legal delays provided at

section 62 Y.P.A. [ 21 ] A part from sobriety maintenance, the parents' financial affairs as well as setting a family routine are issues that must be addressed on the short term with the help of the Director of Youth Protection. Moreover, expansion of the parents' access rights must also occur. In that regard, the applicant will have to do her part and step up her presence in the community.

[ 22 ] As for Y, considering her speech delay, proper speech languages assessments are in order. [ 23 ] The Court hopes that the present decision will not be construed by the parents as a lack of trust, but more like a plan to better the odds for a successful family reunification.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS both petitions; [ 25 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of both children are still in danger; [ 26 ] ORDERS that X be entrusted to C and D for a period of six months with progressive reintegration in his family environment when possible; [ 27 ] ORDERS that Y be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months with progressive reintegration in his family environment when possible; [ 28 ] ORDERS that Y receive the health care services required by her situation, more specifically that she undergoes educational and speech languages assessments; [ 29 ] ORDERS that X receive the health care services required by his situation; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents report to the Director of Youth Protection on regular intervals to inform him about their current situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS the parents to take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 32 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober when in presence of the children as well as to make sure that the children are not in presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 33 ] ORDERS the parents to inform the Director of Youth Protection of any change of address within 30 days; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents, the children and the family they are entrusted to for a period of 18 months; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the contacts between X and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to modalities and that there be at least one sleep over per week at the parents' home; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between Y and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to frequency and modalities and that they occur as often as possible following the child needs and desires; [ 37 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 38 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Pierre Grygiel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the DYP M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid A Lawyer for the child M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the children Date of hearing: June 4, 2014