2019 QCCQ 15098, 2019 QCCQ 15098

Protection de la jeunesse — 194678 2019 QCCQ 15098 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No. 640-41-001868-147 640-41-001869-145 640-41-001870-143 DATE: July 15, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENISE DESCÔTEAUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [… ], 2007 Y, born on [… ], 2007 Z, born on [… ], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A Applicant and A, deceased Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [ … ] , district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 95 Youth Protection Act , P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publication or broadcast of 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 (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 YPA). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection is submitting a motion asking for the extension of the last judgment rendered on February 21, 2018, by the Honourable Jean Gravel, J.C.Q., concerning the situation of the children, X, 11 years old, Z, 9 years old and Y, 11 years old. [ 2 ] At the outset, the applicant changed her position in these three files for the reasons explained below. [ 3 ] While she was initially asking for Z and Y’s placement in their foster family until their age of majority, the applicant argued a new position resulting from a problem concerning the foster family and requiring from this Court a placement of one year in a new foster family.

X is also the subject of a reorientation because of the change of foster family. These new orientations should not be considered as a request for the extension of the last order but rather a revision of that order. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 4 ] The father was present and represented. He recognizes that the security and development of his children are still in danger but challenges the applicable measures. He would like the children to be placed in Town A.

He suggested that the children be entrusted together to his daughter, C. [ 5 ] The applicant asked that the children be entrusted to the foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre. [ 6 ] The children were present and represented. Mtre Jennis recognized that the security and development of the children are still in danger. Y would like to be placed in foster care in Town A, but if that is not possible, she admits that it is going well in her current foster family in Town B. X takes the same position and says that he is okay where he is at the moment.

Mtre Jennis has a legal mandate for Z

because she is too emotional. Concerning the measures, Z specifies that she would like to be in Town A. [ 7 ] The applicant suggested two foster families located in the town of Town B. The father and daughter C still live in Town A. [ 8 ] The issue in dispute is: - Considering the best interest of the children, what measures must be applied to put an end to the situation? [ 9 ] In the last judgment, the children were placed together in a single foster family. Because of many events, the three children refused to return to their foster home.

Those files were postponed on February 27, 2019, and April 16, 2019, because of a lack of time to proceed. [ 10 ] Since the Court session in February 2019, the children clearly manifested that they were not happy in their foster family, namely with D and E. The Director considers this family as an adequate foster home and suggests that the children are trying to choose the foster family where they will live. [ 11 ] The situation concerning this last foster family (D and

E) does not appear so clear for the Tribunal. But the question is no longer important because this foster family was unable to keep the children for the future. [ 12 ] It is always an obligation for Youth Protection services to examine the extended family as the first option. For the applicant, the father and the extended family were not an option because of the adults’ personal issues (alcohol consumption, inappropriate sexual behaviours with minors and children followed by DYP).

The applicant considered other options to ensure that the children grew up in a safe environment that could also ensure their proper development. [ 13 ] In these files, it is not possible to entrust the children to their father. During the last year, the father did not mobilize himself and maintained the same problems. The mother is deceased. [ 14 ] Presently the children are entrusted to two foster homes in Town B. The daughters together in one family and X in the other. [ 15 ] The sole relative in the children’s extended family in Town A is C.

After the testimonies of the latter and of F, it appears that seven children will live in this house if the children are placed there. They will be too numerous for C if that happens. She is only 21 years old. According to her testimony, she has no alcohol problem currently but had to address drinking issues in the past. [ 16 ] In addition, the evidence shows that her environment is very permissive. [ 17 ] The Court has evidence that she was also strongly encouraged by her father to take care of these children. Ms.

C does not have sufficient room to care for 3 more children. [ 18 ] In addition, the children display some behavioural issues such as not complying with the rules and having tantrums. More specifically, X has severe behavioural issues at school. He is always in opposition and has no respect for authority. He lacks respect towards the teacher and has suicidal ideas.

X requires particular care, and he needs a more structured environment. [ 19 ] These children suffered numerous traumas in their lives, more particularly losing their mother and cousin in a fire, and Y was sexually abused. [ 20 ] The father did not help this situation, clearly stating that he disapproves of the children living in Town B. He simply wants them to stay with his daughter in Town A without any consideration for their well-being and development. [ 21 ] Currently, the facts show the children have been stabilized in two different foster homes. The girls stay with Ms. G and X stays with Ms.

H. [ 22 ] For those reasons, it is impossible to give preference to a member of the children’s extended family in their community.

The Court prioritizes the continuity of care, stable relationships and stable living conditions corresponding to the children’s needs and their best interests. [ 23 ] However, in accordance with the wishes of the children, contact with the father and C will be generous, more particularly during school holidays. [ 24 ] Finally, the Court orders different measures for each child considering the different specific problems of each one; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT; [ 25 ] GRANTS the application; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children Y, Z and X are still in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to a foster family chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre. [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 29 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek help through social services concerning his alcohol and personal issues; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the father report in person or by phone, at regular intervals, to the Director to inform him of the current situation; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the father seek help through social services concerning his alcohol and personal issues;

[ 32 ] ORDERS that the father remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 33 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and the father be determined by the DYP as to their modalities, the frequency and the degree of supervision; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the father maintain regular contact by phone or internet with the children; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the children visit their paternal aunt, Ms.

C in Town A, with minimum visits of four weeks per year during the summer, Christmas holidays, March break, Easter and any additional possible holidays; [ 36 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the DYP pays for the plane tickets and lodging for the father’s visits to Town B; [ 37 ] ORDERS visits by C in Town B, a minimum of four (4) times per year, except during the holiday period if the children are visiting C in Town A during those holidays; [ 38 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the DYP pays for the plane tickets and lodging for C’s visits to Town B; FOR Z : [ 39 ] ORDERS follow-up for medical appointments for assessment and follow-up in regard to the FASD diagnosis with specialists in Town C if it is not available in the North; [ 40 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefit from a behavioural technician; FOR Y : [ 41 ] ORDERS that the child be provided with support for her emotional distress, including sexual abuse and the loss of her mother; [ 42 ] ORDERS a psychological evaluation and follow-up if necessary after the assessment; FOR X : [ 43 ] ORDERS that the child and the family benefit from the services of an external educator; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the child attend school on a regular basis; [ 45 ] RECOMMENDS that the child benefits from a behavioural technician; [ 46 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counseling or assistance to the children and the children’s family until May 31, 2020; [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; __________________________________ DENISE DESCÔTEAUX, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Caroline Daniel Cain Lamarre Attorney for the petitioner Mtre. Caroline Jennis Legal Aid Office of Town D Attorney for the children Mtre Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the father Dates of hearing: May 16, 2019 May 17, 2019