2011 QCCQ 17436, 2011 QCCQ 17436

Protection de la jeunesse — 116723 2011 QCCQ 17436 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001387-114 640-41-001388-112 DATE: October 14, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEAN-PIERRE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A C.Y.P.C., working in city A Applicant and X, born on […], 2010 Y, born on […], 2009 Children and A Mother and B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The applicant is presenting the Court with a motion to declare endangered the security and development of the children X and Y, eleven months and two years old respectively. [ 2 ] Both father and mother attend the hearing and all the parties are represented by counsel. [ 3 ] Basically, were the children’s situation recognized as endangered, the applicant is asking for the child Y to be entrusted to his parents and X to a foster family. [ 4 ] The parents do not consent to the measure, but instead they are asking to regain custody of both children. [ 5 ] From the evidence heard and the admissions made, the Court essentially notes the following. [ 6 ] The parents are faced with various personal problems; the mother has a drinking problem, among other things. [ 7 ] And so, regularly, tensions arise in the couple to the extent that they separated.

But at the time of the hearing, they had gone back together. [ 8 ] The reasons generally acknowledged by the parties for the endangered situation are related to alcohol abuse where the parents are not able to properly see to the well-being and development of their children. [ 9 ] This relative negligence has caused some delay in X development and this is the reason why the applicant is hesitant about returning the baby to her natural family environment. [ 10 ] As a matter of fact, the baby girl, not yet one year of age when the case was reported, showed a lower level of development than what is expected of a child that age. [ 11 ] The foster placement seems to have been beneficial for her as she caught up in her development. [ 12 ] The applicant fears that, if the child were returned to her natural environment, her needs would not be met adequately, needs that seem, in all likelihood, to be more pressing than those of her older brother. [ 13 ] As well, the applicant fears not to get proper collaboration from the parents to improve the situation.

[ 14 ] Up to now, the mother’s collaboration has been mitigated to say the least, whereas the father, who has been active in the proposed measures up to recently, now seems to find it more difficult to accept the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 15 ] So these are the reasons why the applicant considers that a placement in a foster family is an appropriate measure in the circumstances. [ 16 ] As to the parents, they state that they have become aware of these gaps and that they are now ready to apply the measures that will redress the situation. [ 17 ] Then, without hesitation, they agree to collaborate with and accept the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection so that adequate actions are taken to ensure that the children grow up in an environment that properly meets their needs. [ 18 ] The parents must keep in mind at all times that it is strictly on the basis of their commitment to offer continued collaboration that the Court considers appropriate to return both children to their natural environment. [ 19 ] There is no doubt that both father and mother have what it takes to raise healthy children, as long as they gain control over their life and accept to receive support that is available to them.. [ 20 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that there is an endangered situation and considers that it is desirable for the two children to be together and to be entrusted to their parents. [ 21 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the motion, [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of both children are compromised; [ 24 ] ORDERS that both children be entrusted to the parents; [ 25 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate without any limitation with the representative of the direction of Youth Protection; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES the direction of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits to the domicile of the children; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to follow all recommendations of the direction of Youth Protection concerning any measure concerning both children; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to abstain from being intoxicated or to consume alcohol in the presence of the children; [ 29 ] ORDERS the parents to follow the recommendations of the representative of direction of Youth Protection concerning any alcohol problem they may have; [ 30 ] RECOMMENDS that occasional caregivers of the children be informed by the direction of Youth Protection of any specific need they may have; [ 31 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the parents and the children for a period of twelve months; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of Y and X to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 33 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of this order. __________________________________ 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 children Me Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Me Michel Solomon Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: September 13, 2011