2014 QCCQ 14886, 2014 QCCQ 14886

Protection de la jeunesse — 143128 2014 QCCQ 14886 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001777-140 DATE: July 18, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2011 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Applicant A , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) […] 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 applicant asks the Court to declare that the security or development of X, born on […], 2011 is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° (i); b) 1° (iii) and b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] The child is absent but represented by a lawyer. The father is present and not represented. He doesn't wish to be represented even if the Court explained to him his rights in that regard. The mother is absent. [ 3 ] The applicant states that the mother was served upon on May 21.

On June 4, the mother called the applicant saying that she was in Town B and wished to attend the Court hearing. Everything was arranged for her transportation. She didn't show up.

Last night the mother texted the father and told him she will not come to Court. [ 4 ] Considering the evidence the Court authorizes the parties to proceed in the mother absence. [ 5 ] If the Court decides that the child safety is compromised pursuant to the law the applicant recommends that the child be entrusted under the care of his father. [ 6 ] The father admits that his child safety is compromised and agrees to have him entrusted under his care. [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence.

The facts [ 8 ] On May 28, 2014 the Court ordered as provisional measures that the child be entrusted to his father. Other measures were ordered until the next Court hearing scheduled to proceed on June 5, in Town A. [ 9 ] The applicant knows the mother since 2012. From 2012 until now the mother signed different agreements on voluntary measures. In those agreements the mother acknowledged having a drinking problem. She accepted to seek help for alcohol abuse and parenting skills. [ 10 ] The mother still has a drinking problem.

She didn't attend any treatment center or made any effort to seek help in her community. [ 11 ] Recently she started a relationship with Mr C. He has a criminal record and was convicted in 2010 for sexual assault on a child under 16 years old. He is living with the mother at her parents' residence. He consumes alcohol with the mother and her father at their residence when the children are present. [ 12 ] All the family lives in an overcrowded three bedroom house. The mother's father abuse alcohol and drugs.

[ 13 ] At the end of October 2013, the mother showed small progress in changing her lifestyle. She stopped drinking after an incident where she collapsed in her home. She had been drinking for several days prior to that incident. She had to be taken to the clinic by ambulance. [ 14 ] In November 2013, the mother was hired at the [Company A] as a housekeeping attendant. She didn't keep her job. In November and December the mother was not drinking.

She signed new voluntary measures and the children were entrusted back under her care. [ 15 ] In January and February 2014, the mother respected the measures but her collaboration with the Youth Protection services was irregular as she missed some appointments with her worker. [ 16 ] Then in March 2014, the family reported to the Youth Protection worker that the mother started to drink again and left her children with family members.

The family asked the worker to meet with the mother regarding this issue. [ 17 ] On April 26, the social emergency worker received a call concerning a possible party at the mother's house. When the workers and the police officers arrived at the mother's home the maternal grandfather opened the door. He was highly intoxicated. The mother and her boyfriend were passed out in a room. The children were not properly dressed. X was wearing a shirt and had a soaked pamper with no socks on. His sibling Y was wearing shirt and shorts with no socks on.

This situation was unsafe for the children as there was broken glass on the floor near the washroom. The children were taken by the workers. Two days later the mother was warned that if there was another report some emergency measures would be carried on by the Youth Protection worker. [ 18 ] On May 8, the mother stated that she had no food at her place and requested groceries to feed her children.

The mother received a $ 200 credit at the grocery. [ 19 ] On May 12, the social emergency worker received a call asking to go at the former foster parents of X's sibling, Y. [ 20 ] The foster parents' daughter texted the mother to ask her if Y could sleep over for the night. The mother texted her to come and pick the children. [ 21 ] When the girl went to the mother's residence Y and X were alone in the house as the grandfather was passed out outside of the house. The mother and her boyfriend were absent. The children were not properly dressed and there was no food in the house.

The police officers confirmed to the Youth Protection worker that the mother and her boyfriend have been seen in the community and that they were both intoxicated. The children were placed in foster care under immediate protective measures. [ 22 ] On May 13, the father texted the Youth Protection worker to tell her that the mother was asking him money to feed X. [ 23 ] During the same period of time the mother went to the foster family's place to pick up the children. They refused to let go the children with her. [ 24 ] Later on the mother came back at the foster family's place.

This time she was with her father and her boyfriend. They were asking the children to come with them and the boyfriend was upset. The foster parents were scared and let the children go with the mother. [ 25 ] Later on the Youth Protection worker took the children with the police assistance. The mother was upset and tried to punch the worker. The grandfather and the boyfriend tried to intervene in that situation. At 5 o'clock the worker went to the mother's residence to tell her there would be a Court hearing in Town C for emergency measures. The grandfather was intoxicated.

Later on the mother contacted the Youth Protection worker and told her she was leaving for Town D. [ 26 ] Since May 28, X is entrusted under his father care. [ 27 ] The father has been working since 2012. He has enrolled his son in a daycare center. The child has his own routine and is going well. [ 28 ] The father has a girlfriend and they live with his parents in Town E. When the father works his girlfriend takes care of the child. [ 29 ] The father agrees to have the child under his care and to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection.

Analysis and decision [ 30 ] The evidence is preponderant that the mother still struggles with an alcohol addiction problem and fails to take the necessary steps to solve it. [ 31 ] The mother signed different voluntary measures but showed a lack of commitment to improve her situation. [ 32 ] The evidence reveals that the mother left the child under the care of inappropriate persons who were intoxicated. She fails to meet the child's basic needs in respect to food, clothing and hygiene. [ 33 ] Since May 28, the child is entrusted under his father care.

His father is taking good care of his son and wishes to have his son with him. [ 34 ] The Court concludes that the evidence is preponderant that the security or development of X, born on June 20, 2011 is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° (i); b) 1° (iii) and b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act . [ 35 ] The Court concludes also that the applicant recommendations concerning the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate

and in the child's best interest. For these reasons the Court: [ 36 ] Grants the motion; [ 37 ] Declares that the security or development of X, born on […], 2011 is endangered pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° (i); b) 1° (iii) and b) 2° of the Youth Protection Act; [ 38 ] Orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 39 ] Entrusts the child to his father; [ 40 ] Orders that the contacts between the child and the mother be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, the frequency and the length and with the presence of a third

part if necessary; [ 41 ] Orders the mother to remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 42 ] Recommends that the mother receives a psychological assessment; [ 43 ] Recommends that the mother seeks professional counselling; [ 44 ] Recommends that the mother seeks help for alcohol abuse; [ 45 ] Recommends that the mother attends a treatment program; [ 46 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents; [ 47 ] Orders any police body to collaborate for the purpose of executing this enactment; [ 48 ] Entrusts the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Suzanne Arpin, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Yan Massé, attorney for the children Date of hearing: June 5, 2014