2013 QCCQ 11144, 2013 QCCQ 11144

Protection de la jeunesse — 133179 2013 QCCQ 11144 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] No: 525-41-027489-137 DATE: July 24, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres Applicant - and - X Born on […], 2013 - and - B - and - C Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 of 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 hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of July 24, 2013, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the law. [ 2 ] The Court was presented with a motion by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the child declared compromised under

section 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act , risk of neglect. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the Director’s motion are the following: • There is a serious risk that the parents will not provide for the child’s basic needs; • The mother has four older children in the care of the maternal grandmother in Town A, Province A; • Up to around 2012, the mother lived an unstable lifestyle, which included transiency, conjugal violence, chronic substance abuse and poor parenting ability; • In February 2012, the mother’s fifth child Y was born with drugs in his system, and he was subsequently placed in foster care by an order of the Court of Quebec, Youth Division; • During the initial stages of Y placement, the mother did not actively participate in the intervention and had inconsistent contact with the child; • In August 2012, the mother was assaulted by a downstairs neighbour, but she refused to identify her attacker; • In autumn of 2012, the mother began to take steps to improve the situation; she participated in conjugal violence counselling and drug rehabilitation treatment; • During her pregnancy with X, the mother maintained her sobriety and generally collaborated with the youth protection intervention;

• In early 2013, a process began to reintegrate Y to the care of the mother, with the assistance of an educator, and this process appears to be going well; • The father, who lives downstairs, has recently become involved in supporting the mother during Y integration to her care; • The father has also supported the mother in maintaining X in her care since the time of his birth in […] 2013; • The mother has recently been spending essentially all of her time at the father’s home, downstairs from her own home; • The father has about eighteen children, including one adolescent who is in his care. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the child be entrusted to his parents’ care and that a social follow-up be maintained with the family for a period of 12 months. [ 5 ] The mother admits the majority of the facts alleged in the motion, and agrees for a social follow-up for a period of three months and at the most six months.

The mother testifies that she receives services from the CLSC and agrees to participate in activities with her son Y at the A Centre. The mother says that she gets along well with the educator who comes to the home two or three times a week. [ 6 ] The father admits certain of the facts alleged in the motion. He has the same position as the mother and feels that DYP’s intervention is not warranted for more than a few months. Mr. C confirms that the mother spends a lot of time at his home, but says that they are not a couple. Mr. C says that his son Z also lives with him.

DYP has in the past been involved with his daughter A, his son Z and two other of his children. [ 7 ] Counsel for the child considers that it is in the child's best interest to be entrusted to his parents’ care. Me Sepinwall considers that a social follow-up for a period of one year is quite long, but that three months is too short. The reintegration of the child's sibling is not yet completed and other community based services must be put in place to ensure that all the child's needs are met.

Therefore, a social follow-up for a period of five to six months is necessary. [ 8 ] The Court also heard the testimony of Ms. [Social Worker 1], youth protection worker, and read the Court report the Director of Youth Protection filed as proof of the child’s situation. The evidence reveals that DYP has been involved with the mother’s other child, Y, and that the mother has made great progress.

The mother has completed a substance abuse treatment program at Pavillon A and attended two drug tests for which the results were negative for substance use. [ 9 ] The mother currently spends a lot of time at the home of the child’s father, who supports her in the care of both her children.

However, the mother has been observed to be overwhelmed at times with the care of Y and the baby. [ 10 ] Given stability and consistency of the mother over the past months, it has been observed that she can answer to her son’s needs with the support of the father’s child and the educator. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the child’s best interest to be entrusted to his parents’ care with a social follow-up until April 1, 2014. The mother must establish a structured routine for both her children and learn to manage their needs independently.

Given the young age of the children and the mother’s history of instability, continued support by DYP is necessary. [ 12 ] The admissions and the evidence made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the child are compromised. [ 13 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child, X, is compromised under

section 38 b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the child, X, be entrusted to his parents' care until April 1, 2014; [ 17 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents avail themselves of community based services, more specifically, A center, CLSC, and all other services suggested by the Director; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and meet with the youth protection worker upon request; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the family continue to receive the services of an educator, as deemed necessary; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the mother submit to random drug testing upon the request of the worker and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE of the mother's consent to undergo random drug testing; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the Director be authorized to obtain and share information with all of the service providers working with the family; [ 22 ] ORDERS a person working for A Youth and Family Centres to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child and the family until April 1, 2014; [ 23 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 24 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed on July 30, 2013 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Sym Davis Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Me Bernard Sepinwall Counsel for the child Me Alexandre Lenis Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: July 24, 2013