2012 QCCQ 16849, 2012 QCCQ 16849

Protection de la jeunesse — 126337 2012 QCCQ 16849 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth Division N os : 640-41-001432-126, 640-41-001433-124 and 640-41-001434-122 DATE: November 20, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born […], 2007 Y, born […], 2008 Z, born […], 2011 MR [[SOCIAL WORKER 1]], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of A, Quebec, district A Petitioner and MRS A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Mother and MR B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap.

P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr [Social Worker 1], delegate of the Director of Youth Protection of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of A, asks the Court to review the last judgment rendered on March 14, 2012 by Honourable Judge Lucille Chabot concerning X (5 years old), Y (3 ½ years old) and Z (1 year old). He asks that the children remain in a foster family for an extended period of six months. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the parents are present and represented by Me Claude Beaudet.

Me Daniel Ouellette assists the child and Me Gabriel Gaudreault the petitioner. [ 3 ] The parents admit most of the allegations, but they declare that they are sober since July 25, 2012 and they disagree with the recommendation concerning the children's placement in foster family for six months. [ 4 ] The evidence reveals beyond the balance of probabilities that the father attended a treatment program regarding his alcohol problem only in August. He attended the [Center A] therapy program from July 30 to August 22, 2012.

The mother refused to attend such therapy even if ordered. [ 5 ] On June 12, the mother met with a psychologist who recommended her to have a psychiatric evaluation. Even if evaluation appointments were scheduled by the social worker, she refused to attend the meetings. [ 6 ] The father's situation improved, but not the mother's. He is aware of the children's situation and acknowledges that his wife's situation does not allow her to take care of the children. [ 7 ] Her alcohol consumption increases her impulsivity and depression. The father is sober since August, but not the mother.

The social worker met her in August while she was intoxicated. [ 8 ] In the last judgment, the judge clearly indicates the parents that they should get all the services they need before reintegration of the children. As they did not comply with all the Court's orders, consequently, the children cannot be reintegrated. [ 9 ] The father complied last August, but the Court must evaluate in the next months if he is able to keep his sobriety. The mother urgently needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist and must collaborate with the social worker.

It is only if they collaborate and respect the Court's orders that reintegration of the children might start. Otherwise, it will remain with supervised visits. [ 10 ] Considering all the fact proved, the Court must extend the children's placement in foster home. If the parents do not collaborate in a short delay, a long-term placement should be considered in the children's best interest. Consequently, the parents must collaborate with the social worker and follow all his counsels.

[ 11 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 12 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y and Z are still in danger; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the children X, Y and Z remain in a foster family for a period of four months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the father participate to a follow-up for alcohol addiction and have regular meetings with the Alcoholic Anonymous; [ 16 ] ORDERS the mother to submit herself to a psychiatric evaluation within a delay of twenty days, and therefore, submit to the psychiatric recommendations; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the access rights of the parents to the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of one year; [ 19 ] AUTHORISES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits to the parents' residence; [ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the petitioner Me Claude Beaudet, attorney for the parents Me Daniel Ouellette, attorney for the children Date of hearing: September 24, 2012