2011 QCCQ 9202, 2011 QCCQ 9202

Protection de la jeunesse — 112860 2011 QCCQ 9202 JG2189 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] CITY OF [...] « Youth Division »

N os : 640-41-001246-096 640-41-001247-094 DATE : April 21 st , 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN: X Born on […], 2003 Y Born on […], 2000 [INTERVENANTE 1], person duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in town B (Quebec), district A; Petitioner -and- A , residing and domiciled in town B (Quebec), district A; Mother -and- B , residing and domiciled in town B (Quebec), district A; Father -and- LA COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE . ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection submits to the Court a motion for revision of a Court decision rendered on February 2 nd , 2010 by Justice Richard Laflamme in which the Court entrusted both children to a foster family for a period of twelve months. [ 2 ] Today, the Director alleges that the parents have not taken the necessary steps to be able to recover the responsibility of their children.

For these reasons, the DYP is asking that the children remain entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months with a possible reintegration of the children with their mother after three months if the situation allows it. [ 3 ] At the hearing, all the parties are present, represented by attorneys. The parties had extensive discussions the day before the hearing and reached an agreement. [ 4 ] Before these discussions, the DYP was asking to keep the children in foster care for 12 months. But when the DYP was

informed that the mother had taken steps to solve her drinking problem and was serious in the follow-up she had started, they agreed to modify their recommendations. [ 5 ] The evidence shows that the father still suffers from the consequences of a brain injury. He remains with very unpredictable outbursts. He is highly depended on alcohol and can be affected from withdrawal symptoms after a few days of not consuming alcohol. The father knows that he does not have the capacity to be the primary caregiver.

However, he shows the desire to be closer to his children. [ 6 ] As for the mother, for a long time she was incapable to solve her drinking problem. Many incidents occurred in April, May, August and even in October 2010 where she was seen intoxicated and arguing with everyone.

When intoxicated by alcohol, the mother becomes very unpredictable and aggressive. [ 7 ] Hopefully, since December 31 st , 2010, after having been highly intoxicated and very violent with her neighbor, the mother decided to stop drinking. [ 8 ] Because she refuses to collaborate with the social worker, all the steps she has taken since then had remained unknown to the DYP.

The Court invites the mother to inform the social worker of the evolution of her situation as it could greatly simplify her life. [ 9 ] The social worker reports that the police have seen the mother intoxicated March 1 st , but the mother denies it. She admits having been among intoxicated people that day but states that she was sober. [ 10 ] As for the children, Y has gone through a lot of ups and downs in the last year. She is a very fragile child and needs stability. At first, Y was entrusted to a foster family in B but the mother would harass the foster family so much that they could not keep Y anymore.

Also, the mother was very little cooperative. She would hide her daughter in her house and not tell anyone where she was. [ 11 ] Y was then entrusted to her godmother. [ 12 ] In May 2010, Y started to have major behavior problems in school. She was verbally and physically abusive with staff and students. She also made suicidal threats. She was immediately sent to the hospital for evaluation. [ 13 ] Since then, Y keeps presenting extensive behavioral and emotional problems.

With the parents' agreement, the DYP decided to send her to a specialized program A in province A. [ 14 ] In A, Y is progressing slowly. [ 15 ] The report from A states, “Y history of having both inconsistent and sometimes hostile parenting has lead to her developing a disorganized attachment style.” The report also states, “Y needs a structure and a predictable environment”. [ 16 ] The Court is also convinced that Y needs that her parents, the educators and social workers work together and in the same direction. [ 17 ] Building on the hope that all the adults around Y will be working as a team, the Court feels that the agreement reached by the parties today provides a valuable foundation to find answers to Y's needs. [ 18 ] The Court has invited both parents to evaluate, along the way, if the mother was strong enough to face the challenges that will represent Y's reintegration with her.

Y is not a regular child. She has a story and she has been through experiences that had an impact on her personality. She needs stability, coherence and security. She will need a « super mother » to answer her special needs. If the mother does not feel capable of offering all she needs, the Court counts on the mother to be able to say so and support Y in accepting her decision. [ 19 ] As for X, he was lucky enough to find a strong foster family to live with. His foster family is a well-respected family in the community, able to provide him with security.

For the moment, this environment meets his needs well and X is developing well with them. [ 20 ] The Court concludes that, at this point in time, the children's best interest is met by their placement in foster families. [ 21 ] In the next months, the mother will have to remain sober and work on her stress management issues if she wants to be ready for an eventual reintegration of her daughter with her.

As the Court was telling the mother at the hearing, the mother needs to keep calm when a conversation is needed with the social worker to discuss her children's situation. [ 22 ] Hopefully, because all the parties agreed to work together in the same direction today, the quality of the dialogue between them should improve in the next months. [ 23 ] To facilitate and encourage contacts between Y and her parents, the Court will recommend that the DYP maintain a minimum of three contacts in the next six months.

The Court encourages the parents to go see their daughter at A to maintain her in a stable environment and also to be able to see for themselves the progress their daughter is making. With the educators' perspective, it will help them make the best decisions for their daughter's future. THEREFORE, THE COURT: GRANTS the present motion; REVISES the decision rendered on February 2 nd , 2010 by Justice Richard Laflamme;

DECLARES that the security and the development of the children are still in danger; ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six (6) months; AUTHORIZES after three (3) months, the reintegration of the children with their mother if the evolution of the situation allows it; ORDERS that the contacts between Y, X and their parents be supervised by the DYP; ORDERS that the conditions and frequency of the contacts be determined in agreement between the parties; ORDERS that the parents be sober at all time when in the presence of the children; RECOMMENDS that the parents have a minimum of three (3) contacts with Y while she is in A; ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and their parents for a period of 6 months; RECOMMENDS that the parents seek help through social services for their alcohol abuse, anger and stress management; ORDERS that X receive certain health services, such as a psychological evaluation and that Y receives a psychological follow-up for her anxiety; ORDERS the parent to cooperate with the Director of Youth Protection; ORDERS the police to cooperate in the execution of this order; ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection A, for the execution of this order. __________________________________ LISE GAGNON, J.Q.C.

M e Robert-André Adam Attorney for the DYP M e Jean-Claude Latraverse Attorney for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Attorney for the father M e Angèle Tommasel Attorney for the mother Date of hearing: April 21 st , 2011