2014 QCCQ 17828, 2014 QCCQ 17828

Protection de la jeunesse — 146064 2014 QCCQ 17828 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 635-41-000582-145 635-41-000583-143 635-41-000584-141 DATE: October 28, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2003 Y, born on [...], 2008 Z, born on [...], 2001 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Mother of X and Y and B , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Father of X and C , residing and domiciled in Town A, district A (Quebec) [...] Mother of Z and caregiver of X and Y ______________________________________________________________________ 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 the security or development endangered of X , born on [...], 2003, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii);

c) and e) 1° of the Youth Protection Act , Y , born on [...], 2008, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii); and 38

c) Y.P.A. and Z , born on [...], 2001, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii);

c) and e) 2° Y.P.A. [ 2 ] If the Court concludes that the children's safety is endangered the applicant recommends that Z be entrusted to his grandfather D, X to her sister E and Y to a foster family. All those different measures are recommended until December 19, 2014. [ 3 ] X and Z are present and Y is absent. The children are represented by their lawyer. A is absent and not represented. Z's mother is present and represented by her lawyer. Mrs C is also X's and Y's caregiver. [ 4 ] X's father (

B) is absent despite the fact that he was served upon with a copy of the petition on August 4, 2014. According to the evidence he did not wish to attend Court. [ 5 ] The children's lawyer admits that the children's safety is endangered pursuant to the law. X does not really want to live at E's place. Y is not happy in his foster family. The lawyer wants the Director of Youth Protection's commitment that all necessary efforts will be made to find a proper foster family among Y's family members or relatives.

She agrees with the recommendations concerning Z. [ 6 ] Z's mother who is also the other children's caregiver admits that their safety is endangered pursuant to the law. She agrees with the applicant's recommendations. [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. THE FACTS [ 8 ] A is X and Y's adoptive mother. B is their adoptive father, but only declared for X. They are no longer together since the past two years. [ 9 ] C is Z's mother. She lives with F. They have been together for about four years.

[ 10 ] In June 2012, B entrusted X and Y to a caregiver C. [ 11 ] A suffers from vascular dementia and she is unable to take care of the children. [ 12 ] On June 20, 2014, the children were signalled to the Youth Protection services. It was reported that X would frequently take care of her sisters and brothers while the parents were intoxicated. She missed school because of that situation. She would be tired about that.

The children would be hungry because their mother or caregiver would fail to feed them. [ 13 ] On June 28, 2014, the Youth Protection worker received information that there were children home alone at C's place. The door was locked and a little boy was looking out the window. The police assistance was requested. However fifteen minutes later the door was unlocked and two young girls were present (X and another girl). [ 14 ] According to the Youth Protection worker there were clothes everywhere just piled up. X said that she would do the laundry the next day and insisted that it was her job. The fridge was empty.

Then C and her spouse returned home. They had been consuming. Suddenly the little Y appeared. The children have been left alone unattended. [ 15 ] On June 30, 2014, the Youth Protection worker went to visit the family and found Y, X and another sibling unattended. There was not much food in the fridge and clothing everywhere on the floor. Accordingly to the children their parents were working. [ 16 ] On July 4, 2014, the Youth Protection worker went to the family's house and when he got there X was walking out crying. Mrs C and her spouse said that they confronted the child with her whereabouts the night before.

It seems that the child did not come back home and broke in the NV townhouse with other youths. Mrs C and her spouse were intoxicated. [ 17 ] The Youth Protection worker reminded them that they missed the last two appointments with him.

Confronted with the fact that X and Z were too young to babysit, they justified it by saying it was okay for the children to babysit and that they both work full time during the day. [ 18 ] The same day the worker learned that it has been two years since Y went to a dentist. [ 19 ] On February 6, 2014, the police intervened with C and her spouse regarding an event of conjugal violence, as they were both intoxicated. [ 20 ] On June 28, 2014, the police and the Youth Protection had to intervene at the family's house as the children were left unattended.

Mrs C and her spouse arrived shortly and were under the influence of alcohol. [ 21 ] On July 22, 2014, the worker learned from the social worker in charge of A, at the elder's house, that Mrs A was partially inapt and though could not take major decisions. She has been living at the elder's house in Town A since she had a heart stroke. A request has been made to provide a curator to Mrs A. [ 22 ] On August 4, 2014, the worker met Mr B to serve him upon with legal documents.

When he entered the house, Mr B was not cooperative and stated that he did not want to take care of his children. [ 23 ] August 7, 2014, the Court ordered the provisional foster care of the children in a foster family until the next Court appearance on September 3, 2014. Mrs C and her spouse were present. Mr B was absent. Judge Gagnon ordered that X be entrusted to E (half- sister). For Z and Y they should have been with E during the first weekend and then on August 12, 2014 with G. [ 24 ] The collaboration of Mrs C with the DYP is irregular. THE CHILDREN Z [ 25 ] He is a calm 12 years old boy.

He likes school, is a bright child but missed school a lot. Because of that he is behind the other children in the class. [ 26 ] He is happy to be fostered by his grandfather. The grandfather is strict and will provide him a structured environment. [ 27 ] In August Z and Y were placed with Mrs G. The applicant was on vacation. According to the applicant there was no services provided to that family during his absence. X [ 28 ] She is an enthusiastic and expressive eleven-year-old girl. Over time, through various interventions, she showed a lot of openness and trust in the DYP.

She missed a lot of school since her mother's heart stroke because she was babysitting her sister's youngest child. [ 29 ] The child expresses not liking school. According to the applicant she had started to smoke with the influence of her order friends. [ 30 ] It is difficult for X to attend school on a regular basis and also to be treated as a child and not as an adult. She was used to have a lot of responsibilities and to be treated as a child is difficult to accept. [ 31 ] As for her siblings she did not receive any service from the DYP during the applicant's absence in August.

[ 32 ] According to the DYP the child could receive help concerning her schooling difficulties. Y [ 33 ] Y is a six-year-old boy. He appears to have a developmental delay according to the applicant's own observations. He does not have a regular follow-up at the CLSC and he could not be evaluated by a professional. [ 34 ] He missed a lot of school last year. He was not showing up in the morning because Mrs C did not take the necessary steps to send him to school. [ 35 ] The child needs also an appointment with the dentist because of cavities. [ 36 ] In August, Y and Z were placed with G.

As it was mentioned before no help was provided to that family during the applicant's absence. [ 37 ] According to the applicant Y is a child "to much overwhelming". When he was placed with G he was not coming back at home after school. Instead he was going at his relatives' place and they were bringing him at Mrs G's. [ 38 ] Harry is not happy with Mrs G. It does not work well for him in that family. [ 39 ] According to the applicant for the moment this is the only available family for Y.

Family members do not want to take care of him as he is "to much overwhelming". [ 40 ] The DYP will make the necessary efforts to find a suitable family for Y as soon as possible. [ 41 ] According to the applicant the child should be assessed by a psychologist in order to know his specific needs. DECISION [ 42 ] Even if the parents have improved their situation by finding work on a regular basis, it is not enough. According to the evidence they did not buy more food or give basic care for their children. [ 43 ] In addition the children missed a lot of medical follow-ups.

X had too many responsibilities as she had to do the laundry and babysit her siblings. She missed a lot of school as her brothers. [ 44 ] Y must be assessed by a psychologist in a short delay. It is not working well for him in the family where he lives. The DYP will have to find him a new family who will answer his needs. The Court is aware about the lack of resources and the difficulties to find a family.

However the DYP will have to make all the necessary efforts to find one. [ 45 ] The evidence is preponderance that the children's security or development is endangered pursuant to the law. [ 46 ] The Court concludes that the applicant's recommendations concerning the measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the children's best interest. For these reasons, the Court: [ 47 ] DECLARES the security or development in danger of X , born on [...], 2003, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii);

c) and e) 1° of the Youth Protection Act , Y , born on [...], 2008, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii); and 38

c) Y.P.A. and Z , born on [...], 2001, pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° i); iii);

c) and e) 2° Y.P.A. [ 48 ] ENTRUSTS Z to his grandfather D until December 19, 2014; [ 49 ] ENTRUSTS X to her half sister E until December 19, 2014; [ 50 ] ENTRUSTS Y to a foster family until December 19, 2014; [ 51 ] All measures are until December 19, 2014; [ 52 ] ORDERS to the DYP to make the necessary step to make sure that Y undergo a psychological assessment and have a follow-up if necessary; [ 53 ] ORDERS the DYP to provide an external educator to X and E; [ 54 ] ORDERS that the children attend school on a regular basis; [ 55 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the mother and the children be supervised by the DYP in terms of modalities, frequency and length; [ 56 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children, to the mother, to D, E and the foster family; [ 57 ] ORDERS the DYP to encourage contacts between the children;

[ 58 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate for the execution of the order; [ 59 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the DYP for the purpose of executing the orders. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q. M e Camille Provencher Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the DYP M e Marie-Claude De Gagné Lawyer for the children M e Angèle Tommasel Lawyer for the caregiver Date of hearing: September 3, 2014