2011 QCCQ 10616, 2011 QCCQ 10616

Protection de la jeunesse — 112287 2011 QCCQ 10616 CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC [...] JJ0296 COURT OF QUEBEC YOUTH DIVISION N°: 525-41-024166-118 N°: 525-41-024167-116 N°: 525-41-024168-114 N°: 525-41-024169-112 DATE: May 31, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE ANN-MARIE JONES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the cases of: X Born on […], 2003 - and - Y Born on […], 2004 - and - Z Born on […], 2008 - and - A Born on […], 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT

Section 38 Y.P.A. ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Within the framework of the Youth Protection Act , no person may publish or broadcast information allowing 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. [Y.P.A. sections 11.2.1 and 135] [ 1 ] The Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for a decision rendered verbally at the hearing of May 31, 2011, in accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The Court was presented with four motions by the Director of Youth Protection to have the security and development of the children declared compromised under

section 38, paragraphs b) 2) of the Youth Protection Act , as there is a serious risk that the parents are not providing for the children’s basic needs. [ 3 ] The principal facts alleged in support of the motions read as follows: • In 2005 and 2006, Children’s Aid Society provided follow-up services to the family due to issues of substance abuse and domestic violence; • In July 2009, Centre jeunesse A began the assessment of a signalement and detected elements of neglect, but the process was not completed because the parents moved to Town A; • Since August 2010, X and Y have been the subject of a Voluntary Measures Agreements, due to frequent school absenteeism; • X and Y continue to miss school without justification and to arrive late on a frequent basis and are frequently tired when they attend school;

• The parents have a chronic history of drug and alcohol consumption; • The parents continue to consume alcohol and cocaine on a regular basis; • The mother stated that she ceased her consumption in May 2010 upon learning that she was pregnant, while the father has continued his consumption; • The parents minimize the impact of their drug and alcohol consumption on their parenting ability; • The parents are disorganized and are unable to establish a structured routine for the children; • The parents have limited financial resources.

There is often insufficient food for the children and efforts to find a more suitable dwelling have not been successful; • The mother has only inconsistently attended to her own medical needs, and the parents have not attended to the children’s medical needs in a timely manner. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children be entrusted to their parents’ care, that the family be assessed by the Family preservation program and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of one year. [ 5 ] The parents admit the majority of the facts alleged in the motions and consent to the recommended measures.

Counsel for the parents informs the Court that the father is on a waiting list to participate in a program A and the mother will shortly be starting an outpatient program B, to address their substance use. [ 6 ] Me Laforce, on behalf of the children, made no admissions, but approved the measures recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. [ 7 ] In

summary, the evidence establishes that the parents present difficulties in meeting their children’s needs. Their disorganized life style has impacted on X and Y’s school attendance and the children's medical and dental follow-ups. [ 8 ] Furthermore, the parents must address their substance use. They each underwent a substance abuse assessment with Mr. A in April 2011. He concludes that the parents’ substance abuse is problematic and that they would benefit from treatment in order to stop consuming all substances. In the case of the father, Mr.

A concludes as follows: Based on a face-to-face interview, test results, pattern and duration of substance use, collateral information (inconsistent information about onset of use) negative consequences associated with his substance use, and a possible positive family history for substance abuse (father in recovery), I would conclude that client is abusing alcohol and cocaine in a binge pattern. He could be minimizing his consumption and with a positive family history for substance abuse continued use in this pattern could lead to a substance dependency. [ 9 ] In the case of the mother, Mr.

A concludes that the substance use is more problematic and that she would be benefit from a treatment program where she could receive education on the dynamics of continued substance abuse, identifying triggers and high risk situations and structural relapse prevention techniques. He concluded as follows: Based on a face-to-face interview, test results, pattern and duration of substance use, increased consumption, no significant period of abstinence and negative consequences associated with her substance use, I would conclude that client has an active substance abuse problem.

Continued substance abuse in this pattern will lead to a substance dependency. I also suspect that client has minimized her substance consumption since she suffered more symptoms associated with substance dependency rather that substance abuse. Client has been abusing alcohol and cocaine in a binge pattern over the past year. [ 10 ] The Court also heard the testimony of [social worker 1], human relations agent, and read the reports the Director filed as proof of the children’s situation.

The parents have been collaborating with DYP and progress has been observed particularly, concerning the new apartment the family moved to and X and Y’s school attendance. However, the youth worker mentions that she is concerned about the parents’ motivation, since the family has received services in the past and still there is no structured routine established for the children.

Then again, the parents have accepted to participate in the A program, which will provide the family with an intensive follow-up, including visits at the home two to three times per week. [ 11 ] Under the circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest to be entrusted to their parents’ care and that a social follow-up be provided to the family for a period of one year.

The parents will need to address their substance use and provide their children with a stable and organized environment. [ 12 ] The evidence and the admissions made have convinced the Court that the security and development of the children are compromised. [ 13 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 14 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 15 ] DECLARES compromised the security and developement of the children, X, Y, Z and A; [ 16 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the care of their parents; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parents ensure that X and Y attend school daily and on time, unless justified by a medical note; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from consuming or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the presence of the children;

[ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents follow through with the recommendations made from their respective substance abuse assessments; [ 20 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend the outpatient rehabilitation program of Griffith Edwards Centre; [ 21 ] RECOMMENDS that the father attend the outpatient program A; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents submit to regular random drug and alcohol testing and TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the parents consent to submit to random drug and alcohol testing; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the family be assessed by the C program and if accepted, follow all recommendations of the program; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents participate in health services provided by the CLSC for the children and more particularly, that the children have a medical and dental follow-up and that Z be assessed for his speech impediment, if necessary; [ 25 ] ORDERS that DYP be authorized to obtain and share information with professionals working with the family; [ 26 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their family for the period of one year; [ 27 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children, X, Y, Z and A, to the Director of Youth Protection A Youth and Family Centres, who shall see that the measures are carried out; [ 28 ] ORDERS the execution of the present order by any peace officer.

Signed June 2, 2011 Ann-Marie Jones, J.C.Q. AMJ/dg Me Camille Champeval (Counsel for the D.Y.P.) Me Pauline Laforce (Counsel for the children) Me Marc Morin (Counsel for the parents) Date of hearing: May 31, 2011