2017 QCCQ 506, 2017 QCCQ 506

Protection de la jeunesse — 172 2017 QCCQ 506 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 640-41-001477-121 and 640-41-001479-127 DATE: January 6, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2007 Y, born on […], 2000 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in Town A, Quebec, District A Applicant 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 (Sections 95 (par. 1) and 75 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 is seized with two motions asking the revision of the decisions rendered on December 9, 2015 by Honourable Lise Gagnon concerning the situation of X, 9 years old, and Y, 16 years old. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children remain with the parents and receive services from the Youth Protection worker. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the parents and the children are present.

The children are represented by Me Angèle Tommasel and Me Aubrée Coutanson assists the applicant. [ 4 ] The parties made admissions and agree with the recommendations. Revision reports are filed. [ 5 ] The evidence reveals that Y integrated a new foster family after the last Court hearing and it was difficult to maintain her there. Despite of the interventions made by the youth protection worker, the youth returned with her parents in July 2016. [ 6 ] In March 2016, the youth protection worker learned that Y was pregnant.

On September 2, Y was medevaced to Town B as she went into labour and was having health complications. After the baby’s birth, Y decided to keep the baby. [ 7 ] Following the last decision, X integrated a foster family who was overwhelmed by her behaviour after few months. The youth protection worker searched for a new foster family, and in July 2016, after being placed in four different foster homes, the child refused to go anywhere but her parent’s house. [ 8 ] Since the children’s return, the parents are more collaborative. They reduced their drinking and there is no sign of domestic violence.

Unannounced visits were regularly made without any incident. [ 9 ] As mentioned in the last judgement, the parents, by their attitude, jeopardised the placement. Now, they offer more collaboration than before and their situation has just started to improve. The children decided to go back with them and they want to remain with them. [ 10 ] As the last judgment was not respected, as the applicant will provide the services of an external educator and unannounced visits will continue, and as the children do not invest in services otherwise, FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motions;

[ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; [ 13 ] REMAINS the children X and Y with the parents; [ 14 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the children the services of an external educator; [ 15 ] ORDERS the children and the parents to report in person at regular intervals to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 16 ] ORDERS the parents to remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the children; [ 17 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits in the family household; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents until June 14, 2017; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Aubrée Coutanson Attorney for the applicant Me Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the children Date of hearing: November 9, 2016