2015 QCCQ 20804, 2015 QCCQ 20804

Protection de la jeunesse — 157272 2015 QCCQ 20804 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000683-151 610-41-000684-159 DATE: November 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2005 Y , born on [...], 1999 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection working at the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled at [...] in Town B, district A (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...], Town C, (Province A) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review its decision rendered on July 10, 2015. On that date the Court declared the security or development of X. and Y compromised pursuant to the Youth Protection Act . As one of the applicable measures the Court maintained the children with their mother until October 21, 2015.

Other measures were ordered for the same period of time. [ 2 ] If the Court concludes that the security or development of the children is still compromised the applicant asks as one of the measures to maintain the children with their mother. [ 3 ] The children are present and represented. They acknowledge that their situation is still compromised and agree with the applicant's recommendations. Y does not want to have any contact with her father. As for X he is reluctant to see his father. [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented.

She acknowledges that the security or development of her children is still compromised and agrees with the applicant's recommendations. [ 5 ] The father is absent. He was served however not in the legal delays. All the parties agree that it is in the children's best interest to proceed in those files despite the father's absence. He is not directly involved in his children's life. The applicant tried to reach him prior to the Court hearing but did not succeed. The Court authorizes the parties to proceed.

The facts [ 6 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 7 ] On July 10, 2015, the Court maintained the children with their mother for a short period of time in order to see how and where the mother will stabilize her situation and her children's situation as well. [ 8 ] In July 2015, the mother had different projects in Quebec and [Province A]. She had an instability problem that she did not acknowledge.

Because of their mother's instability the children were changing school often and missing school's days. [ 9 ] During the implementation of the measures the applicant has been working with the mother to mobilize her in her steps to make a final decision on where she and her children are going to stay in September 2015. [ 10 ] Spending the summer in Town C with her children in the paternal environment the mother stayed in contact with the applicant. They were all living with the father who would have been absent during the week and regularly in Town D during the weekends.

According to the mother the father was going to Town D to drink and use drugs with friends. Also the electricity has been turned off because the father was having difficulty to pay the bills.

[ 11 ] According to information gathered from the Child Protection Services serving the Town D area the father is receiving services from them for several weeks. He is receiving services relevant to addictions as well on the reserve. [ 12 ] The mother has succeeded to stabilize her children in Town B. The mother took that decision largely because she has a house in Town B. She neither got a confirmation for a house on Town C or for a job and because the children were already registered in School A.

She collaborates very well with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] Y is happy with that situation as she is going to the school she wanted to go back to. She hopes to finish school with her friends. At school she follows a modified academic program with learning support for her special needs. [ 14 ] As for X. he seems to be going good. He was hoping to go to School A as he likes that school and have friends over there. [ 15 ] As for the contacts with the father the situation is complicated. The father communicates with the children on Facebook.

He does not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection at all. [ 16 ] First of all the Director of Youth Protection wants to stabilize the children in Town B. As for the contacts with their father the children will be consulted by the Director of Youth Protection prior to any contact. Decision [ 17 ] The evidence is preponderant that the mother mobilized herself and took significant steps to ensure stability to her children.

However the situation remains fragile as time will tell if the mother can maintain stability with regards to the domicile and the children's school attendance. [ 18 ] According to the evidence the mother has good parental skills and she will benefit from counselling from the Director of Youth Protection in order to support her in making her decisions concerning her children. [ 19 ] The Court concludes that the security or development of Y and X is still compromised pursuant to the Law.

As for the applicant's recommendations concerning the measures they are reasonable, appropriate and in the children's best interest.

For these motives the Court: [ 20 ] Grants the motions; [ 21 ] Maintains that the security or development of X and Y is still compromised pursuant to the Youth Protection Act ; [ 22 ] Orders the following measures for a period of ten months; [ 23 ] Orders that the children be maintained with their mother; [ 24 ] Orders the mother to report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of her and the children's situations; [ 25 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents; [ 26 ] Maintains the personal relationship between the father and the children; [ 27 ] Orders that the contacts between the children and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection concerning frequency, modalities and length.

The children will have to be consulted before any visits occurred between them and their father; [ 28 ] Orders the mother to ensure that the children will go to school on a regular basis; [ 29 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother's consent and recommends that the mother makes sure that the Director of Youth Protection is always able to reach her and the children mainly by informing the worker within 48 hours of any changes of address, phone number and occupation; [ 30 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother's and Y's consents and authorizes the exchange of information between all the professionals implicated in the children's and the mother's situations with the Director of Youth Protection regarding the aspect of security or development of the children; [ 31 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 32 ] Entrusts the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Julie Lemire, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

Me Peggy Warolin, attorney for the children Me Sébastien Lebel, attorney for the mother Date of hearing: October 23, 2015