2019 QCCQ 14226, 2019 QCCQ 14226

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910449 2019 QCCQ 14226 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000787-173 DATE: August 8, 2019 (written judgment rendered on December 5, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2014 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] in [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in [...] 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 extend a decision rendered on June 27, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2014. At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to the grandmother Ms. C, until May 31, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow a return of the child to his parents and recommends keeping the child under his grandmother’s care.

Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is absent and not represented. [ 4 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Tommasel. He gave no admissions and he contests the measures. [ 5 ] X, who is 5 years old, is absent, but represented Me Boudreau, who submits to the Court that the measures suggested are in his best interest. [ 6 ] X has a brother, Y (almost 3 years old), which his situation is also submitted to the Court. History of the situation [ 7 ] On June 16, 2017 , the situation of X was submitted to the Court.

The DYP was involved in the family situation for 18 months because of the conjugal violence at home which the children witnessed. The parents seem to be open to mobilize themselves. The grandmother is very helpful and is available to take care of the children if needed.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered [1] and maintained him with his parents with the services of an external educator. [ 8 ] On December 19, 2017 , the DYP submitted to the Court that the children are doing well under their parents’ care, despite the fact that those latter still display alcohol and violence issues. The parents took steps to entrust a therapy centre, but did not complete it. The evidence revealed that the mother was seen intoxicated with the children under her care.

The parents were not present at the court hearing, and did not collaborate with the external educator. The children are very attached to their parents, but the Court doubts that they are doing so well. They should be affected. The Court noted, “For the moment, he may appear to be doing well under their care. In the medium term, behavioural problems will arise, and everyone will be surprised because they seemed to be doing so well previously.” The Tribunal requested intensive services adapted to the fragility of the situation.

The Court maintained the children with the parents with the support of an external educator. [ 9 ] On June 27, 2018 , the Court noted that the children are frequently at the grandmother’s place. The parents struggle with the

same issues. The father had bitten the mother who had to be hospitalized in Town A. Since then, the father is detained. The grandmother is available to take care of the children, and the parents are in agreement. The Court entrusted the children to the grandmother until the end of May 2019. [ 10 ] On May 15, 2019 , because of the weather, the mother and the children did not travel. The father refused to come and the mother was nowhere to be found. A draft agreement was announced to the Court. The status quo was maintained until August.

Facts [ 11 ] Since the last order, the children were maintained with the grandmother. [ 12 ] The mother lives at the grandmother’s place and works at [Company A] following a

schedule of two weeks on and two weeks off. [ 13 ] In August 2018, the mother informed the DYP that she plans to move to Town A with her new boyfriend. She also said that she was taking steps to entrust Treatment Center A. [ 14 ] In December, the DYP worker noted that the mother was still there, but she still speaks about moving to Montreal, as she does not want to be there when the father will be released. At the end of December, an intervention was needed as the mother expressed suicidal ideation. [ 15 ] The father, on his side, expresses the wish to have his children back under his care.

He made some therapy in detention. According to him, if he has his children, he won’t drink. If he does not, he will do what he wants. In April, he changed his version and was not so sure that he wants his children back under his care. According to him, it would be maybe better for them to be entrusted to their grandmother. The DYP worker offered a calendar of visits, but the father never came back on it. [ 16 ] The father expressed his ambivalence during a few weeks. He wants to go to Social Services. He eventually wants to have her oldest one. He started drinking again, but less than before.

The DYP worker explained to him that he has to call before organizing access as an evaluation is needed. A few weeks later, the father planned to attend Treatment Center B and, according to him, the children should stay with their grandmother. [ 17 ] The DYP worker went a few times at the father's place. His apartment is always adequate, and there are no signs of consumption.

His apartment is near of the grandmother’s home, but the two families have no contacts and the father does not put pressure to see the children. [ 18 ] The mother still not took decision regarding her place of living. [ 19 ] The grandmother clearly expresses that she has no confidence that the parents could properly raise the children. She is available to take care of them and asks the DYP to stay involved. Analysis [ 20 ] The situation of the child remain obviously endangered as no one of his parents is able to take care of him. [ 21 ] He is actually with his grandmother where he is very well taken care.

It’s important to maintain this stability. [ 22 ] The parents have to be encouraged and supported in the steps they will take to address their issues. [ 23 ] It’s also important to remind them that the law imposes a maximum period of placement and when that period is reached the Court has to order measures on a long term basis. Those maximum periods are set to give time to the parents to resolve the situation in which the security and development of the child are endangered. The duration of those periods consider the capacity of the children to develop bonds with their care giver.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS the application; [ 25 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2014, are still endangered; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the maternal grandmother Ms. C; [ 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 ] ORDERS that the child attend school or another place of learning; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the father receive the services of an external educator; [ 31 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother seek help through the Social Services or any other services regarding her alcohol consumption issues; [ 32 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through the Social Services or any other services regarding his alcohol consumption, conjugal violence and anger management issues;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child during visits; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the parents do not expose the child to any type of violence during visits; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision of the contacts between the child and the parents are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 36 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and the parents; [ 37 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X, to the Director of Youth Protection of A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 38 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of the enactment; [ 39 ] THE WHOLE until April 8, 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Geneviève Apollon, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me David Boudreau, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the father Date of hearing: August 8, 2019