2012 QCCQ 9661, 2012 QCCQ 9661

Protection de la jeunesse — 121389 2012 QCCQ 9661 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] TOWN [...] Youth chamber No: 640-41-001370-110, 640-41-001371-118 640-41-001372-116, 640-41-001373-114 DATE: June 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 1995 Y, born on […], 1997 Z, born on […], 1998 A, born on […], 2003 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Health Centre C.Y.P.C. working in Town A Applicant -and- B, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district of A Mother -and- C, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district of A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (

Section 95 ( par.1) and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q. c. P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection demands the review of the decision rendered on April 19, 2011 concerning X, born on […], 1995, his brother Y, born on […], 1997, his sister Z, born on […],1998 and A born on [...], 2003. [ 2 ] The parents and their children are present and represented.

II - ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The parents and the children recognised through their admissions that the security and development of their children are still in danger. [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection recommends that the children, except X, be fostered in a foster family for a period of six (6) months. As for X, the Director recommends that he be maintained with his parents. [ 5 ] All the children agree with the measures recommended but the parents demand the reintegration of all their children.

III - ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DECISION [ 6 ] The evidence tendered consists of the admissions, the testimonies of the social worker and the parents and the review report.

[ 7 ] On April 19, 2011, the Court maintained the children except X, with the parents under specific conditions. The situation of X was particular since he was the most affected by the behaviour of the parents and at the time, the most fragile from a psychological point of view. [ 8 ] The parents still experience conjugal problems and lately the father was openly speaking about divorce. He had left the family residence. Today, he has changed his mind and reintegrated his home.

Nevertheless, both parents need services, guidance and support considering they cannot by themselves, correct the situation. [ 9 ] As for the mother, she has a serious anger management problem that necessitated the intervention of the police. This issue was identified and detailed in the decision of April 19, 2011, but the evidence tendered today clearly establishes that the situation has worsened in the past months. [ 10 ] The testimony of the social worker convinces the Court that the parents need to undergo treatment and guidance before the children can reintegrate their home.

Indeed, the mother does not know what triggers her aggressiveness and the father is incapable of protecting his children when the mother explodes. [ 11 ] That could explain why the children agree with the foster care measure recommended by the Director of Youth Protection. Why should X be maintained with his parents, contrary to his siblings? He is 17 of age, capable of protecting himself and would not be the subject of physical abuse by the mother, at least not since a while. [ 12 ] The parents have identified some elders that could help and guide them.

The experience might prove extremely positive but it must be made clear to the parents that specialized help or treatment is not to be avoided. [ 13 ] In

summary, the problems that were identified on April 19, 2011 are still present and continue to put at risk the security and development of the children. [ 14 ] The difference, if the case, lies in the fact that the parents are less reluctant to collaboration and participation in services offered to correct the situation. [ 15 ] The challenge, according to the evidence tendered, is to bring the mother to be evaluated by a psychologist that could, if deemed necessary, provide her with tools to prevent her outbursts.

He could also guide the father on how to react appropriately and efficiently to neutralize his wife when she has anger fits. [ 16 ] For the time being, access and visitation rights should be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection, until the parental situation warrants otherwise. [ 17 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 18 ] GRANTS the demands; [ 19 ] MAINTAINS the security and development of the children in danger; [ 20 ] REVIEWS the decision rendered on April 19, 2011; [ 21 ] ORDERS the following measures in accordance with

section 91 of the Law:

a) the foster care of the children Y, Z and A in foster families for a period of six (6) months, starting on May 1, 2012;

b) maintains the teenager X with his parents;

c) that a person working for an organism or establishment provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the children for a period of twelve (12) months;

d) that the parents participate and collaborate in the measures proposed to correct the situation; [ 22 ] AUTHORIZES and MAINTAINS personal relations between the parents and the children; [ 23 ] ORDERS that access rights and visitation rights be exercised under the supervision of the Director of Youth Protection, as for the frequency and modalities; [ 24 ] ENTRUTS the situation of the children, to the Director of Youth Protection, for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ DANIEL BÉDARD, J.C.Q.

Me Me Cassandra Neptune Lawyer for the children Me Alexandre Cimon Lawyer for the D.Y.P. Me Angèle Tommasel Lawyer of the mother Date of hearing: May 1, 2012