2015 QCCQ 12127, 2015 QCCQ 12127

Protection de la jeunesse — 153372 2015 QCCQ 12127 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] « Youth Court Division » N°: 525-41-0 29144-144 / 525-41-029145-141 Date: April 24, 2015 PRESIDED BY: THE HONOURABLE TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. In the case of: X Born on […], 2000 In the case of: Y Born on […], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant -and- A , the mother -and- B , the father The parents JUDGMENT

Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act (L.R.Q., c. P-34.1 ) JD2620 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and provides written reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of April 24, 2015, in accordance with the provisions of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act [1] . [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection A filed a motion to declare that the security and development of a child is in danger in the case of X and Y , who are respectively fourteen and ten years-old, based on the serious risk of neglect and psychological ill-treatment to which they are exposed. [ 3 ] The facts alleged in support of the motion dated November 26, 2014 are as follows: 3.1. there is a serious risk that the parents do not meet the [children’s] basics needs with respect to food, hygiene, clothing and lodging, taking into consideration their resources, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the situation of the [children] was signaled to the Director of Youth Protection on September 26, 2014, with regards to the mother’s alcohol use;

b) the situation of the [children] was previously signaled with regards to the same issue in April of 2014, but the file was closed after the mother agreed to attend a rehabilitation centre program;

c) the mother drinks on a daily basis;

d) a plan was put in place whereby the mother was not to drink while in the presence of the [children];

e) on November 25, 2014, the worker made an unannounced visit to the home;

f) the father was in the home but did not allow the worker to enter, telling her the mother was absent and asking her to meet him at a nearby café;

g) later, the worker returned to the home to meet with the [children];

h) after twenty (20) minutes, the mother returned home accompanied by a neighbour;

i) the mother was totally intoxicated and needed assistance to walk;

j) nor the father or the [children] seemed surprised with the mother’s condition;

k) the father stated that the mother had been on a binge drinking since November 20, 2014;

l) the father left with the [children]; 3.2. the [children] [are] seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of [their] parents that could cause [them] harm, and the [children’s] parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents have a tumultuous relationship and are trying to separate;

b) the [children] [are] exposed to ongoing fights between the parents;

c) the father moved out of the home in June of 2014 but is often present at the home;

d) the worker worked with the family on a strict

schedule as to when the father would be home, but this was not respected;

e) the [children] [are] accessing psychosocial support at school;

f) in the beginning of November 2014, the adolescent was caught stealing (reproduced with errors and/or omissions). [ 4 ] In light of the foregoing, and given positive developments in the family’s situation since the date of the motion, the Director recommends that the children remain entrusted to both their parents with aid, counsel and assistance, as well as additional corrective measures, for a period of six months. [ 5 ] The mother, assisted by Me Shapiro Knight, admitted most of the facts alleged in support of the motion and consented to all the proposed measures. [ 6 ] The father, assisted by Me Unterberg, admitted the majority of the facts alleged and consented to the proposed measures. [ 7 ] Me James, on behalf of the children, made no admissions but approved of the measures proposed by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 8 ] The Director filed Exhibits D-1 to D-6 as evidence: D-1: [Children]’s birth certificate; D-2: Court report, written by [Social Worker 1], dated January 19, 2015; D-3: Drug test results of the mother from December 6, 2014 and December 31, 2014, en liasse; D-4: Intake Assessment at “[centre A]”, written by Dr.

Luc Lapierre, dated December 3, 2014; D-5: Fair sharing of kids, email message, dated January 23, 2015; D-6: Addendum, prepared by [Social Worker 1], dated April 13, 2015. [ 9 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes the facts alleged in support of the motion. [ 10 ] However, significant progress has been made as the mother appears to have remained sober since successfully completing the first phase of a treatment program for her alcohol addiction at [centre B]. [ 11 ] She has begun the second phase of the program and also attends weekly AA meeting and has sought counselling services in the community. [ 12 ] The children have already begun to feel the benefits of their mother’s abstinence: X and Y have reported no exposure to their mother appearing to be under the influence or drinking.

X shares that he is very proud of his mother’s progress. Y expressed feeling that her family feels normal and that her mother is no longer drinking. Moreover, they reported that they have not seen their parents engage in an argument. [2] [ 13 ] The mother is strongly encouraged to continue in her efforts to avoid any risk of relapse. The parents must also be mindful to avoid conflict in the presence of the children. [ 14 ] Consequently, given the admissions and consent expressed by each of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the motion is well- founded and that the measures are in the children's interest.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the children, X and Y , are compromised under

section 38 b) 2) and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; AS FOR THE MEASURES, THE COURT DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 17 ] ORDERS that the children remain entrusted to the care of both parents; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents not be together in the presence of their children, until no longer deemed necessary by the Director of Youth Protection, more particularly, between now and the end of the school year there will be two three-hour periods per week when the parents may be together in the presence of their children, as well as additional time upon request and with the delegate’s approval; at the end of the school year additional contacts between the parents in the presence of their children may occur as determined by consent amongst the parties; [ 19 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in mediation; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend random alcohol/drug tests upon request of the delegate; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to attend a substance abuse program; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to receive psychological support; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the children continue to receive psychological support; [ 24 ] ORDERS that a person working for Youth and Family Centres A provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their family; [ 25 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X and Y , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 26 ] THE WHOLE for a period of six months.

TAYA DI PIETRO, Q.C.J. Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Luce James Attorney for the children Me Judith Ann Shapiro Knight Attorney for the mother Me Agnès Unterberg Attorney for the father TD/vl