2019 QCCQ 19748, 2019 QCCQ 19748

Protection de la jeunesse — 198143 2019 QCCQ 19748 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] “Youth Division” No: 635-41- 000880-184 DATE: September 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2018 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on September 24, 2019. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to extend the order rendered by the Honourable Jacques Ladouceur on June 26, 2018. [ 3 ] On May 13, 2019, the Tribunal postponed the hearing at the parents’ request.

The status quo was maintained. [ 4 ] On July 10, 2019, the hearing was postponed again and the status quo was maintained. [ 5 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be placed in the care of Mr. C and Mr. D until her age of majority. The Director also recommends that support measures be ordered for the same period. [ 6 ] The parents are contesting the duration of the order. They believe that a six month Court order would be sufficient for them to take the necessary steps to facilitate the child’s return to their care.

They ask for one last chance. [ 7 ] The child’s attorney is of the opinion that a last chance should be given to the parents and also recommends a six month Court order. Questions in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and Analysis [ 9 ] In order to assess the evolution of the situation, it is often interesting to look where we started. The June 26, 2018 judgment of Justice Ladouceur was rendered following a draft agreement signed by the parties. Justice Ladouceur then wrote the following in his judgement:

[2] Mainly, the parents admit that they have an extensive history with Youth Protection, that they have alcohol consumption issues that they display conjugal violence issues and that on several occasions the police had to intervene with them. They sought help for their issues but none of them are completed. [3] The mother started to take steps to participate in the A program and will probably go there soon. They offer a good collaboration with Youth Protection. [ 10 ] The parents’ situation has remained essentially the same. [ 11 ] The parents have continued to display alcohol consumption issues.

The police had to intervene on several occasions during situation of conflicts between them. [ 12 ] On July 6, 2018, the police had to intervene as the mother was intoxicated, trying to fight with her own father. She was arrested for mischief. [ 13 ] On August 5, 2018, the father assaulted the mother while they were at home. The father was arrested for assault and forcible confinement. [ 14 ] On August 15, 2018, the mother went to the police station while inebriated. She kept asking the police officer for a ride home. [ 15 ] On January 1, 2019, the mother and E had an argument concerning alcohol.

The mother was injured and was transported to the hospital. The mother was intoxicated during this incident. [ 16 ] On January 16, 2019, the father hit the mother on numerous occasions. The mother made threats to stab him. [ 17 ] On May 5, 2019, the police had to intervene as the parents were fighting. They were both intoxicated during the event. [ 18 ] On August 4, 2019, following a period of incarceration in Montreal, the mother returned to Town A.

She was to be placed under house arrest. [ 19 ] On August 5, 2019, the police had to intervene as the mother was laying drunk, on the ground in front of the Town A Hotel. [ 20 ] On September 14, 2019 the mother was arrested for breach of a Conditional Sentence Order. She was intoxicated when the police intervened. [ 21 ] On occasions in 2018 (July 18, morning of July 19, July 11, October 3 and 4), the parents missed visits with the child in Town A as they were intoxicated. The foster family has been open to travel to Town B to permit visits of the child with her parents in Town A.

When the parents are sober, visits are described as positive for the child. [ 22 ] Since May 2019, the mother has been in and out of prison. [ 23 ] Contrary to the Criminal Court conditions, the parents report that they are now living together. [ 24 ] The parents sought help for their issues but none of them are completed. [ 25 ] From October 10 to November 11, 2018, the father entered the A Program. He left before completion of the program. The father explained having relapse during an outing.

He mentioned to the Youth Protection worker that it was “ too hard ”. [ 26 ] On October 15, 2018, the mother entered the program at Center A but left three days later. [ 27 ] On August 7, 2019, the Youth Protection worker met with both parents. The mother then reported that she was waiting to receive treatment either from the A Program or from the Center B. A letter was produced confirming that the mother was on the waiting list to enter the A Program [1] . The Youth Protection worker testified to the effect that a place will probably be available for the mother in November 2019.

Another letter confirmed that since May 2019, the mother participated in a follow-up with the CLSC (two phone appointments and two meetings) [2] . [ 28 ] The father received services from the CLSC as of July or August 2019. He would like to take

part in the Rehabilitation Program from the Center B or Center A. During his testimony, the father mentioned that he would fill the forms tomorrow. The child [ 29 ] Since July 19, 2018, the child has been living in the foster family of Mr. C and Mr. D in Montreal. This resource was chosen as no other potential acceptable resource was available in Town A. Before this move, the child had been transferred on several occasions to different foster families. [ 30 ] The child has been thriving in her actual foster family and she is reaching all of her developmental milestones.

She is well bounded and attached to her foster fathers. Mr. C and Mr. D are willing and able to care for the child until her age of majority. They already care for two other Inuit boys until their respective age of majority. The children are acting together like brothers and sister. The foster fathers are taking steps for the child to keep connected to her culture. They expose the children to music, books and Inuit art. Mr. C testified to the effect that they plan to attend activities at the Centre C and that they will ensure that visits with the parents will continue to happen in the North.

The Tribunal has no doubt that Mr. C and Mr. D will be “ capable of preserving (the child’

s) cultural identity ” [3] . [ 31 ] Mr. C reported that the child found her place, that she developed a real attachment to her foster fathers and her foster brothers.

[ 32 ] Contradictory evidence was presented as to whether or not Mr. C and Mr. D had completed the process to be recognized as foster parents. [ 33 ] The maximum duration of placement for the child has elapsed. The Tribunal can appreciate the parents’ undertaking to take steps to stabilize their situation. Such undertakings were given in front of the Honourable Jacques Ladouceur on June 26, 2018. The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence support an extension of the legal prescription regarding maximum duration of placement (

article 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act ). THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 34 ] GRANTS the application for extension; [ 35 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 36 ] EXTENDS the order rendered on June 26, 2018; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted namely to Mr. C and Mr. D; [ 38 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that Mr. C and Mr. D have gone through or are going through the process of a foster family evaluation; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered; [ 40 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober in the presence of the child; [ 42 ] ORDERS that the parents refrain from all violent behavior in the presence of the child; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through the Social Services concerning their substance issues and personal issues; [ 44 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and the parents be determined by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities, frequency and degree of supervision and that they occur at a minimum frequency of four visits per year; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child and her parents; [ 46 ] THE WHOLE until the child’s age of majority ([…], 2036); [ 47 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., who shall then see that the measures are carried out. ___________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on October 31, 2019 /cd Mtre Geneviève Apollon Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Nada Boumeftah Counsel for the child Mtre Angèle Tommasel Counsel for the mother Mtre Caroline Jennis and Mrs. Laurence Migué Counsel for the father Date of hearing: September 24, 2019