2011 QCCQ 5363, 2011 QCCQ 5363

Protection de la jeunesse — 11867 2011 QCCQ 5363 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-001272-100 640-41-001273-108 DATE: February 23, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER], Youth Protection worker duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A C.Y.P.C., working in city A Applicant -and- X & Y, both residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district of A Children -and- A, residing and domiciled in city A, Quebec, district of A Mother -and- B, residing and domiciled in city B, Quebec, district of A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (par. 1) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application for the extension and the review of a decision rendered on last July by [social worker 2] in the case of X, born on […], 2002 and Y, born on […], 2008. [ 2 ] At the beginning of the hearing, all parties suggest to proceed to a common inquiry, which the Court agrees to. [ 3 ] Both children are absent but represented by counsel.

The mother is present and also represented by her lawyer. As for the father, he is present and not represented by counsel. [ 4 ] On July 15, 2010, [Social Worker 2] declared the security and development of X and Y endangered because the parents did not meet the children's basic needs. It was apparent to my colleague that the mother's addiction to alcohol made her unable to meet her children's needs, in regards to the appropriate supervision and support. [social worker 2] was of the opinion that the father had fulfilled the necessary conditions in order to remain the main caregiver for Y.

Consequently, Y was entrusted to the father and X was entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months with the possibility of a progressive reintegration if the situation allowed it. THE FACTS [ 5 ] The evidence demonstrates that since the last judgment, the mother has made some efforts to avoid consuming and to maintain a full-time job. However her efforts to maintain a healthier lifestyle fell trough after a few weeks, after which she came back to her old pattern. She acknowledges that she displays an addiction to alcohol for which she needs help.

With the assistance of the petitioner she now contemplates the possibility of attending one of two treatment centres. [ 6 ] Furthermore, the mother's housing situation and her living conditions remain troublesome. These conditions are unsafe for the children. In fact, many men who live in the same house as the mother have a history of violence and sexually disturbing behaviour to which the mother doesn't want her children exposed to. Recently, she has filed an application to the housing committee to have her own house.

Her application is supported by a referral from the D.Y.P. who feels it's important that the mother be able to provide a safe environment for her children. [ 7 ] Turning to the father's situation, it is somewhat more complicated. Following the last judgment, it was reported that the father made real efforts to maintain Y in a healthy and safe environment. However, a few weeks before the hearing, the petitioner felt the

need to file an addendum revision report in light of the deterioration of Y's care. [ 8 ] Although the father's heart is in the right place, the evidence shows he has some shortcomings with respect to his parental skills. Y lives with his father as well as with the father's girlfriend and some of her relatives. The father is hesitant to bring his son to day care. He prefers to keep his son at home. Unfortunately, the father offers little structure and intellectual stimulation to his son. Accordingly, the toddler has a speech delay. Moreover, the father fails to follow the scheduled visits with the mother.

Instead, the child is often brought to the mother's house when she is absent or under the influence of alcohol. Y is then left with unsuitable sitters. [ 9 ] Following a doctor's appointment, it seems the father fails to meet the child's nutriment needs with respect to dairy products as well as to fruits and vegetables. To this, the father answers that he feeds his son mainly traditional food, to wit game meat and milk. [ 10 ] The father's cooperation with the youth worker is quite poor. He seldom meets with her at the Youth Protection office.

The father gives the excuse that the D.Y.P. office is far away when in fact it is quite close to his home. During the hearing, the father shyly admits he would be more at ease with a Cree youth worker. [ 11 ] As for X, she is a very happy child developing well with her grandmother. Her contacts with her mother are regular and satisfying. [ 12 ] The evidence tendered shows that the security and development of both children remain endangered. MESURES TO REVIEW [ 13 ] The Director of Youth Protection seeks the placement of X in a foster family for a period of six months.

The parties do not challenge this measure. [ 14 ] At the outset of the hearing, the Director of Youth Protection amended the conclusion sought in Y's situation and requested a six months placement in a foster family instead of entrusting the child to his father as first proposed. The father is opposed to this measure. He wants his son to remain under his care. Despite the father failings, the mother believes it is in the best interest of Y to remain with his father, coupled with the assistance of a Youth Protection worker.

Counsel for Y also believes that his client could be entrusted, once again, to his father provided he is willing to better his parental capacities. [ 15 ] From the petitioner's testimony, the Court understands that the change of orientation concerning Y was prompted by the father's decreased cooperation with the D.Y.P. and his limited parental skills. The Youth Protection worker has high hope that the mother will soon take the necessary steps to deal with her alcoholism and will then be capable to assume her parental responsibilities as she has the necessary parental skills.

As for now, the petitioner has yet to find a foster family for Y. [ 16 ] At this point, it is useful to consider the principle enacted at

section 4 of the Youth Protection Act following which every decision made by the Court must aim at keeping the child in it's immediate family. [ 17 ] In that respect, the evidence shows the father obviously needs help in developing his parental capacities, in order to avoid putting Y's safety and development at further risk. The father can provide such an environment but with the assistance of the D.Y.P. or social services. There is no doubt that the father loves his son.

However, the Court is adamant: the father must collaborate with the D.Y.P. and social services in order to learn how to meet his son's basic needs in regards of supervision and development. [ 18 ] This is why the Court will order an unusually short period for the measures thus allowing to verify the father's true interest and capacity of becoming a significant parental figure for Y. [ 19 ] The D.Y.P. must also encourage the father by helping him seek help with Cree services, if needed be. [ 20 ] As for X, all parties agree she still needs to remain within the secured environment provided by the maternal grandmother.

For now, the father must concentrate all his efforts on Y's basic needs. [ 21 ] As for the mother, the Court encourages her to stabilize her life with respect to her alcohol problem as well as her housing situation.

Her capacity to care for her children depends on her willingness to address the underlying pain and suffering of her alcoholism. [ 22 ] Accordingly, in X's situation, a very short period of foster care will allow the Court to verify the steps taken by the mother to stabilize the above-mentioned aspects of her life. [ 23 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 24 ] GRANTS partially the petitions; [ 25 ] MAINTAINS that the security and development of X, born on […], 2002 and Y born on […], 2008, remain endangered; [ 26 ] ORDERS the placement of X in a foster family for a period of two months; [ 27 ] TAKES KNOWLEDGE that the D.Y.P.'s choice of foster family concerning X is the maternal grandmother; [ 28 ] ENTRUSTS Y to his father; [ 29 ] ORDERS that Y attend day care regularly; [ 30 ] ORDERS the parents to report periodically to the D.Y.P. on the measures applied in their own regard to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of their children are in danger;

[ 31 ] ORDERS the mother to meet with social services on a regular basis to work on her alcohol issues and to follow their recommendations; [ 32 ] ORDERS that contacts between the mother, Y and X be supervised according to the frequency determined by the D.Y.P.; [ 33 ] ORDERS the father to respect the visitation

schedule determined by the D.Y.P. concerning Y and his mother; [ 34 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling and assistance to the children and their family for a period of two months; [ 35 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present order; [ 36 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. M e Stéphanie Lachance Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells Lawyer for the D.Y.P.

M e Jean-Claude Latraverse Legal Aid Lawyer for the children M e Sarah Plamondon Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: February 15, 2011