2014 QCCQ 20947, 2014 QCCQ 20947

Protection de la jeunesse — 148934 2014 QCCQ 20947 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000612-135, 610-41-000613-133 & 610-41-000614-131 DATE: August 25, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of having a place of business at […] in City A, district A Applicant -and- X, Y & Z domiciled and residing at […] in City B, district B, […] Children -and- A, domiciled and residing at […] in City B, district B, […] Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing at […] in City C, district B, […] Father of X & Z ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a petition for the review of a decision according to

section 95 of The Youth Protection Act concerning X, born on […], 2012, Y, born on […], 2006 and Z born on […], 2011. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the parties request a common inquiry, which the Court agrees to. The mother of all three children is present and represented by her lawyer. The children are also represented by their lawyer. Y was present for part of the hearing, but stayed outside the courtroom for the remainder. Z and X’s father is absent, although he was duly notified. He is presently detained and expressed to the applicant that he had no intention to be present at the hearing.

ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The parties recognize that the security and the development of the children remain endangered. The Director of Youth Protection amended it’s recommendation and is now requesting that all three children be entrusted to their maternal aunt for the following year. The eldest child Y consents to the Director’s main recommendation. For her part, the mother disagrees and requests that the children be entrusted to her. THE FACTS [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved with the family for many years, notably concerning half siblings .

On August 21, 2013, Bélanger J. endorsed a draft agreement and declared the security and development of the children endangered due to neglect and unreasonable methods of upbringing. The parents have a long history of alcohol abuse and violence seems to be well rooted in their relationship.

Bélanger J. ordered that the children remain with the parents provided that the mother and the father receive help as well as undergo assessments for alcohol and substance abuse and participate in a follow-up if deemed necessary. [ 5 ] Since the last court order, the parents failed to undergo in a diligent matter the proper assessments for their alcohol and substance abuse. The parents’ relationship has been rocky. The Director of Youth Protection received a report in October 2013 concerning domestic violence in a context of alcohol abuse. The mother was then brought to a woman shelter.

The father is incarcerated since March. He is scheduled in criminal court in September and faces a jail term of several months.

[ 6 ] Marital problems and a wish to better herself prompted the mother to move to City B. Upon her arrival in City B with the children, they first stayed in a woman shelter. Afterwards, the mother was able to find her own apartment and had plans to attend University. She did reach out for help at the [Center A] but did not follow through with the meetings and support offered by a worker at the center. [ 7 ] Meanwhile, on June 21 around midnight, the City B police found X and Z in their diapers alone in the parking lot of car dealership. When the police arrived at the mother’s dwelling she was highly intoxicated.

The same type of incident occurred the next night. This prompted immediate protective measures and a provisional court order by which the children were entrusted to their paternal aunt, C. [ 8 ] In July, the cases were postponed and the children remained with their aunt. A calendar of visits was drafted, but in August the mother missed several visits with her children. According to the aunt, on a few occasions the mother was in City D but chose to go drinking at a house well known for that in the community. The aunt’s efforts to find the mother in the community failed on some occasions.

Y expressed much sadness and disappointment following his mother’s absences. [ 9 ] At the end of July, the mother met with the first line worker responsible for family services in City D in order to seek help for her parental skills. She was supposed to come back the next week for a follow-up and failed to do so. [ 10 ] In her testimony, the mother denies her addiction to alcohol and states that it is a thing of the past. She claims that she is able to care for her children who she loves dearly. Her intentions in regards to her relationship with B remain unclear.

Although in July the mother did undergo an assessment regarding her alcohol consumption, the Court does not believe she was truthful in her answers during the evaluation. According to the said assessment, the mother claimed being sober for the last four months, which is obviously not the case, considering the evidence and the mother’s owns admission. As a result, the Court disregards the assessment to the effect that the mother does not need a follow-up. [ 11 ] The parents’ problems reflect on the boys’ developmental and emotional wellbeing.

To a certain extent, Y has been subjected to "parentification" as he feels responsible for his younger siblings as well as for his mother. During the last two years, his school attendance has been very poor. He missed half of classes and faces academic failure although he is a smart boy, who has the capacity to do well in school provided he attends class. [ 12 ] As for Z and X the paternal aunt noticed a certain speech delay and that they still prefer to be fed by bottle.

ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 13 ] The evidence must be considered as new facts, which entitles the Court to review the previous decision. [ 14 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved in the family’s life for many years because of the parents’ addiction to alcohol or drugs, which prevents them from providing a secure and stable environment to their children. B’s incarceration leaves the mother with the entire parental responsibilities on her shoulders. [ 15 ] The mother is in denial in regards to her addiction to alcohol.

As a result, she is unable to acknowledge that this hinders her capacity to care for her children. Although she loves her boys, the evidence shows that she failed to invest in measures aimed at helping her with her alcohol problem, parental skills and self-esteem issues. [ 16 ] The applicant’s recommendations are more than reasonable considering the persistence of the problem and the children’s need for stability. Y’s schooling is a vital stage of his development. He needs to attend class and be in a state of mind to learn. [ 17 ] As for X and Z they also need stability and stimulative interaction with others.

It would be greatly beneficial for them to attend daycare. [ 18 ] The mother needs to be true to herself and stabilize her life.

The Court hopes she will seek the necessary help to do so and make up her mind as to her relationship with the father. [ 19 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the three children remain endangered; [ 22 ] ORDERS that all three children be entrusted to their paternal aunt, C for a period of one year; [ 23 ] ORDERS that both parents report periodically to the Director of Youth Protection as to the measures they apply in their own regard or in the children's regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the children is in danger; [ 24 ] ORDERS that visits between the parents and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequencies and modalities and ENCOURAGES that the visits with the mother occur as often as possible; [ 25 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to establish a calendar of visits; [ 26 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any measures ordered by the Court; [ 27 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of 15 months; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children not be in the presence of people consuming alcohol or drugs;

[ 29 ] ORDERS the parents not to consume drugs or alcohol in the presence of the children; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the mother seek professional treatment for her alcohol addiction; [ 31 ] ORDERS that all three children receive the specific health services required by their condition, notably that they be assessed by a pediatrician; [ 32 ] ORDERS that Z and X attend daycare on a regular basis; [ 33 ] ALLOWS that any professionals involved be permitted to exchange information regarding the attendance and general progress of the children or the family situation, professional secrecy will apply for the rest; [ 34 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the DYP M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the children M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: August 20, 2014