2021 QCCQ 16587, 2021 QCCQ 16587

Protection de la jeunesse — 214657 2021 QCCQ 16587 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002208-186 DATE: May 27, 2021 (written judgment rendered on July 6, 2021) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2015 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled at [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on May 22, 2020, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2015.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to his paternal grandparents with a gradual reintegration under the parents’ care as soon as the situation allows it, until May 31, 2021. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and that the child be entrusted to a foster family with a gradual reintegration under the parents’ care as soon as the situation allows it, until January 30, 2022. Position of the Parties [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Neptune.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered and she agrees with the measures. [ 4 ] The father is present and represented by Me Tommasel. He recognizes that the security and development of his child are still endangered and he agrees with the measures. [ 5 ] X is absent, but represented by Me Lucas. The child’s lawyer submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in her best interest. [ 6 ] X has a brother, Y who is 5 years old. The Court is also seized with his situation.

History of the Situation [ 7 ] On August 29, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measures and entrusted the children to a foster family. [ 8 ] On October 2, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for protection. X was 3 years old, and Y was 2 years old. The parents were separated and the father had the custody of the children. The mother exercised access rights during the weekend. The father lived at his parents’ place, but they asked him to leave because they were tired of having the children. The mother has a borderline personality disorder and received no help.

She was detained and released with conditions regarding the contacts with her children. In August 2018, both parents drank together and at one point the father left to go to work. The mother continued to drink while the children were asleep, but she injured them seriously. The father admitted that it was not the first time such violence happened towards the children. The father agreed to keep the children, but a few minutes after he was with the mother and disclosed being tired of having the children and asked that they be entrusted to foster families. The children were indeed entrusted.

The parents did not exercise all the authorized visits with their children. The father explained that by the fact that it was too painful to see his children entrusted. The grandparents changed their mind before the hearing and agreed to be present for their grandchildren and to accept the father at their

place. The Court concluded that this change of mind was too late and the children need more involvement from their caregivers. The Court declared that the security and development of the children were endangered [1] and entrusted them to a foster family for 6 months and ordered supervised contacts for the mother. [ 9 ] On March 21, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. The evidence shows that since the last order, the children were entrusted to their paternal grandparents and they were doing very well. The father lived with them and collaborate well with the DYP.

The mother still displayed alcohol consumption issues and was waiting to enter [Centre A] Therapy Program. The Court entrusted the children to a foster family with a reintegration with one of the parents if the situation allows it. The mother was also authorized to enter [Centre A] with her son Y, the whole until March 31, 2020. [ 10 ] On March 26, 2020 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the children to a foster family and ordered that services of an external educator be provided. [ 11 ] On May 22, 2020 , the Court revised the situation.

The evidence shows that since the last decision, the children remained entrusted to their paternal grandparents. As before, the father continued to live in their household and is very helpful with the children. The parents resumed their relationship, but they have their own house. The situation of the mother evolved very slowly. At the beginning she was very harassing with the paternal grandparents, but she became nicer due to her reduction of alcohol consumption. Her collaboration with the DYP is irregular and most of the time, it is the father who encourages her to ask for access rights.

The grandparents are available to take care of the children, but they consider that the parents are too comfortable in this situation, and do not take the appropriate steps to resume the care of their children. X should start school in September 2020. She is a very bright girl and lean very quick. Y’s development does not raise any concern. The Court entrusted the children specifically to their grandparents and allowed a progressive reintegration with the parents if possible.

The Court also ordered that the family receive the services of an external educator and recommended that the parents participate to a psychological evaluation, the whole until May 31, 2021. Facts [ 12 ] After the last decision, the parents remained mostly passive regarding the follow-up and had difficulty to collaborate. The mother’s alcohol consumption issues prevent her from being emotionally available to work with the DYP worker. [ 13 ] The mother was assessed by Dr. Beltempo, psychologist.

As already known, the evaluation shows that she suffered from many traumas in her childhood and she drinks to avoid her thoughts. Dr. Beltempo confirms that the mother has the desire to address her issues, but she will need to be well supported to achieve her goal to gain the sobriety. [ 14 ] The paternal grandparents offer her help as much as they can as they do for their son and grandchildren. This support was beneficial for the parents who were able to modify their point of view and became more open to work actively on their difficulties. [ 15 ] Progressively, the father started to mobilize himself.

He was present for his children. He continues to work on night shifts, to bring the children at the daycare and at school in the morning, going to sleep at the mother’s place and picking up the children and to spend the evening with them at his parents’ place. [ 16 ] The mother took steps to attend [Centre A], but she was not considered enough motivated to be accepted.

Doing so, she decided to attend Isuarsivik and she is waiting for a phone call to go to City A to follow this six-week program. [ 17 ] Despite the previous Court order, the family did not receive any services from an external educator as the DYP worker did not see that such ordered had been rendered. [ 18 ] It would have been appropriate that this family received such services, but by chance around the month of March 2021, the DYP worker started to offer weekly workshops to the parents. It is at that time that they were well surrounded, that they started to improve their situation and to accept the help.

The parents appreciate those workshops, and the DYP worker confirms to be available to continue such weekly meetings. [ 19 ] The child is doing very well at home and at the school and no concern is raised regarding her development. She created very strong bonds with all her family (her grandparents, father and mother). Analysis [ 20 ] The parents were able to improve their situation recently. This change of mind coincides with the increase of intensity in the service provided by the DYP.

This shows that with an appropriate intensity of service as requested by the law, the parents can have the chance to learn, to apply the tools and to finally improve their situation. [ 21 ] The Court will order that the workshop provided by the DYP worker continue to be offered to the parents with the same frequency and also the services of an external educator which was not provided despite the Court order.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS the application; [ 23 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2015, are still endangered; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to her paternal grandparents as foster family if they are accredited as such; [ 25 ] ORDERS that the child be gradually reintegrated under the care of the parents if the situation allows for it; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents, be determined by the Director of Youth Protection;

[ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through Social Services concerning her alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother be properly assisted, if she desires, that the recommendations set out by Dr.

Beltempo be implemented; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the family; [ 32 ] ORDERS that the parents continue to benefit from weekly meetings with the Youth Protection worker to do various workshops; [ 33 ] ORDERS that the family benefit from the services of an external educator as long as deemed necessary; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 35 ] THE WHOLE until January 21, 2022. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Adèle Cyr, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Geneviève Lucas, attorney for the child Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the mother Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 27, 2021