2021 QCCQ 12972, 2021 QCCQ 12972

Protection de la jeunesse — 217198 2021 QCCQ 12972 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000747-214 DATE: September 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant And X, born on [...], 2021 Child And A Mother And B Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91of the Youth Protection Act, ch.

P-34.1 CQLR ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection submits an application asking the Court to declare as endangered the security and development of X, 4 months old, alleging neglect due to the lack of supervision [ 2 ] At the hearing, both parents are present and represented by Mtre. Marie-Michelle Grenier. Mtre. Yan Massé acts on behalf of the young child and Mtre.

Magdalena Lempicka on behalf of the applicant. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the applicant and both parents testified. [ 4 ] In August, the Court, as provisional measures, entrusted the child to the care of the mother as long as she resided at her mother’s place at the exclusion of the father. This condition was not respected by the parents as both the mother and the child were in presence of Mr. B.

The mother explained this situation by saying that the child needs to bond with his father. [ 5 ] The recommendation made by the Social Worker was that the child be entrusted to the mother on the condition that she resides at [...]. But, at the hearing, she added at the exclusion of the father which came as a surprise for both parents.

The applicant felt that the child would not be safe if in presence of both parents because arguments often happened between them in the past. [ 6 ] The mother admits that they sometimes argue but that the situation has never been out of control. [ 7 ] She is in agreement with staying at her mother’s but she would like the father to live with her. It seems that X’s grandmother would be in agreement with that as long as the parents follow the house rules. [ 8 ] The mother admitted having taken cocaine twice in August.

She also drinks alcohol. [ 9 ] Sometimes she left the child to the care of the grandmother for a few days in a row in order to be with the father. [ 10 ] She has 4 other children who are living with their father. She would agree to attend treatment. She already underwent a therapy in [Town A] in 2017, but unfortunately, she relapsed the year after. [ 11 ] As for the father, he admits a habit of consuming cannabis at night.

He states that he had been sober from cannabis for a period of 1 ½ years, but relapsed when X was entrusted to the mother at his exclusion. [ 12 ] He also admits drinking alcohol, but does not consider having a problem or any issues with his consumption. Nonetheless, he

would agree to attend a treatment. [ 13 ] He admitted having assaulted A in the past and that the police had to intervene. It was not an only event, but he couldn’t be precise about how many times it happened. Each time, he was under the influence of alcohol. [ 14 ] Both parents agree with random drug testing in order to reassure the Director of Youth Protection. [ 15 ] They also both realize that if they do not follow the rules at the grandmother’s house, they will face a big problem. [ 16 ] The grandmother is a safety net to ensure the security of X.

She is collaborative with the Director of Youth Protection and never hesitated to report the situation when there were problems. [ 17 ] A bond must be created between the child and his father. So, the Court does not agree to entrust the child to the mother at the exclusion of the father. [ 18 ] With unannounced visits, random drug testing and the presence of the grandmother, both parents can be in presence of the child.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the application; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2021, are endangered (Section 38 b) 1° iii) of the Youth Protection Act ); [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of the mother at the condition that she resides at [...] and that the child sleeps at this address every night except if the parents have a preauthorization from the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to follow the rules at the grandmother’s place; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to take active steps in order to engage in and complete an alcohol and drug treatment program; [ 24 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that the father meet with a therapist for his own personal issues and that what is said to the professional remain confidential; [ 25 ] TAKES NOTICE that both parents agree to undergo random drug testing and AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to ask for such drug tests; [ 26 ] ORDERS the mother to obtain the child’s legal documents such as registering the birth, obtaining a birth certificate and a health card; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to be and remain sober at all times when in presence of the child; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the child in presence of people who are under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 29 ] ORDERS the parents to ensure that the child is not exposed to any form of violence; [ 30 ] ORDERS both parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and to meet the Worker upon request; [ 31 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all service providers working with the family; [ 32 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits wherever the child is; [ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the family for a period of 4 months; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

Mtre. Magdalena Lempicka Ferreira Lempicka Attorneys Lawyer for the applicant Mtre. Yan Massé Legal Aid

Lawyer for the child Mtre. Marie-Michelle Grenier André Levasseur Avocats Lawyer for the parents Date of hearing: September 28, 2021