2019 QCCQ 17757, 2019 QCCQ 17757

Protection de la jeunesse — 196506 2019 QCCQ 17757 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] « Youth Division »

No: 145-41-000550-175 DATE: August 15, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE HERMINA POPESCU, Q.C.J. ______________________________________________________________________ THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and X (born on [...], 2013) Child and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR REVISION ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act (Y.P.A.) 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 ] Arguing that new facts have arisen since the last Court order of August 8, 2018, the Director of Youth Protection (DYP) is asking that the child be entrusted to him and to be placed in a foster family until his full age. [ 2 ] The parties agree to proceed jointly in the situation of X (5 years old) and Y (2 years old). [ 3 ] During the hearing, parties reach an agreement: because of the mother’s determination to solve the neglect situation and continue to address her personal difficulties, DYP asks that X should be intrusted to him until May 31, 2020. [ 4 ] A brief reminder of the Court’s orders in the situation of the child is needed. [ 5 ] On August 9, 2017, the Honorable Judge Almeida declares that the security and development of the child are endangered because of his exposure to spousal abuse and neglect for basic needs or serious risk of it. [ 6 ] Judge Almeida underlines that the mother was using drugs since her early age.

Mother suffered traumatic events during her childhood and they left her with emotional scars. As a result, she was getting involved in unhealthy relationships and used drugs as a mechanism to help ease her pain. [ 7 ] The mother was physically assaulted by the father when she was pregnant with Y, while X was present. Also, during her pregnancy with Y, she continued to use drugs. [ 8 ] Both parents were drugs users. [ 9 ] Judge Almeida entrusted then X to a foster family, as the parents could not provide him with a safe, secure and loving environment. [ 10 ] On August 8, 2018, Judge Poirier revised this order.

Mother was then in a women shelter, where she could see her children. However, she left shortly afterwards to go back to her apartment and live, on and off, with the father. [ 11 ] The mother struggled with serious addiction problems, and even if on few occasions she undertook steps in order to enter treatment, she either not attended the meetings or left prematurely. [ 12 ] Mother mentioned to Judge Poirer that she was supposed to start a drug rehabilitation program in the [A Community], on August 13, 2018. She was also supposed to enter a detoxification center on August 6, 2018.

[ 13 ] This last program was set for 6 weeks and was meant to help her deal with the addiction issues, but again this failed because of her lack of commitment. [ 14 ] Indeed, on September and October 2018, [social worker 1], authorized person in the child’s situation, was informed that the mother lost all her applications for treatment as the addiction workers were judging that she was sabotaging her way to treatment. [ 15 ] Since the August 8, 2018, mother visited Y and X while they were living with the maternal grandmother and contacts were then supervised by the extended family.

It was reported that the mother preferred to spend time with X, and not so much with Y. [ 16 ] During the revision of the case, on November 13, 2018, the mother was present through teleconference. She was then informed that because of her non commitment to try and resolve her personal issues, long term measures were to be applied concerning the situation of the child. The mother hang up the phone immediately afterwards she was informed of this. [ 17 ] As for the father, he is a fisherman and is basically absent from the life of the children.

When informed of the orientation of the child situation, father agrees to the recommendations. [ 18 ] During the hearing, the father explains that his work keeps him busy from March to November. He can be absent during few days. However, he recognizes that domestic violence is not acceptable. He is willing to receive professional help with regard to his anger management problem as soon as the fishing season is off. [ 19 ] In the past, the mother avoided and made little attempt to follow therapy and meetings.

The mother felt she was the victim but she was in denial as per the direct impact of her addiction on her ability to be a good mother. Also, the domestic violence was present. [ 20 ] Indeed, parents still live together. [ 21 ] Fortunately, mother’s evolution is positive. [ 22 ] On April 1, 2019, she attended the [Center A] in Town A, Province A that she completed on April 26, 2019. [ 23 ] At the end of this program, the mother returned to her apartment. Mister [social worker 1] set up with her a visitation rights schedule. Even if the

schedule included supervised visits at her apartment, she decided not to have those visits at the apartment because of rodent issue. Instead, the first visit took place at a friend’s apartment and the next ones at the father’s home. [ 24 ] The contacts of the child with his parents had a good impact on the child, even though mother prefers spending time with X and not so much with Y.

It is difficult for the mother to take care of both children and do other activities (eg. cleaning, etc.) in the same time. [ 25 ] Since the end of April, 2019, mother continued to attend meetings with the addiction workers from the Center B and of the Community B From the A Health Center. She is also attending AA meetings.

Also, the mother receives services of an external educator from A Family Services. [ 26 ] The security and development of the child are still endangered because he is in a situation of serious risk of neglect and risk of exposure to spousal abuse. [ 27 ] The mother intends to continue working on her addictions and to improve her personal situation. She intends to start very shortly a mother and child program of 7 to 9 months duration, at Centre C.

She will start this program alone and if her evolution is positive, X and Y could go and see her. [ 28 ] The parties agree that is the mother is successful in the completion of this program, it is expected that X will return to live with her. Therefore, even is the delays of

section 91.1 Y.P.A. are now reached, the Court believes that the return of X with his mother is probable and will therefore accept the parties’ agreement [ 29 ] The duration of this order will be of 9 months so that the permanent life project of X be determined by its end. X will be therefore entrusted to the foster family of C, his maternal aunt, with whom he lives since February 2018. His younger brother Y lives with them as well and both children adjusted very well to this life environment.

THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 30 ] REVISES and EXTENDS the Court order rendered on August 8, 2018; [ 31 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X are still considered to be endangered; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection until May 31, 2020 ; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the child remains in the foster family of C under the conditions that are outlined in the agreement signed today by the parties and which is included in and part of the present Court order. __________________________________ HERMINA POPESCU, J.C.Q. Me Louyse Lemieux Paradis, Smith and Lemieux For the applicant

Me Jules Grenier grenier grenier & grenier For the child Me Alexis Deschênes Bureau d’aide juridique For the mother Filed on : August 21, 2019