2019 QCCQ 15974, 2019 QCCQ 15974

Protection de la jeunesse — 1910386 2019 QCCQ 15974 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002104-179 DATE: January 17, 2019 (written judgment rendered on September 24, 2019) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on April 18, 2018, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the child to her parents with aid, counsel and assistance until April 30, 2019. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to maintain the child with her parents and asks that she be entrusted to a foster family until January 31, 2020. [ 3 ] The Court is also seized with the situation of her little brother, Y. Position of the parties [ 4 ] The mother is present and represented by Me Tommasel.

She admits most of the allegations and she agrees with the measures, but not with the duration proposed as she finds it too long. She would like to go to treatment and have a reintegration of the children with her when she will come back from it. [ 5 ] The father is absent, but represented by Me Martineau. Me Bourgeois-Lessard asks to proceed in his absence.

The Court authorizes to proceed in the absence of the father, considering that he was duly served, that all the arrangements were made for him to travel, that he was not in state to travel yesterday, and that he communicated his position to his lawyer. [ 6 ] The father admits most of the allegations. He apologizes for being absent today, he agrees with the recommendations, but says that his plan is to get the children back to his care as he had improved a lot. [ 7 ] X who is 5 years old is absent, but represented by Me Lazarov.

After hearing the evidence, he agrees with Me Martineau that an evaluation of the relation between the mother and the children, especially with Y be done, not necessarily by a professional, but by a DYP worker. He also agrees with the duration of one year. History of the situation [ 8 ] On July 20, 2017 , the situation of the children was submitted to the Court. The children were founded in a hotel room while being neglected and in presence of cocaine, alcohol and a hunting knife. An immediate protective measure was taken on October 21, 2015, and since then, the parents had signed few voluntary measures.

Following that, many events of consumption occurred at the parent’s place. The mother was detained and the children had to be entrusted under the grandmother’s care, but the father had concerns because the grandmother had a consumption history. On April 4, 2017, the children went back under their father’s care, but he had problems at his place and was not able to take care of them. He confirmed his desire to change his way of life. On May 13, 2017, the children were entrusted back to the grandmother in Town A. She stopped consuming and the children are doing very well there. The

Court mentioned the fact that the children were moved many times and it’s now time to reach stability. The Court declared that the security and the development of the children were endangered [1] and entrusted them under the grandmother’s care until July 19, 2018. The Court authorized a reintegration at the mother’s place only if she completes a substance abuse program, participate to a regular follow-up and if the situation allows it. [ 9 ] On April 18, 2018 , the situation was revised. The parents mobilized themselves and improved a lot. They maintained regular contact with their children.

In February 2018, the maternal grandmother was arrested for drug trafficking and the children were entrusted back under their parent’s care. The mother was arrested for breach of condition related to alcohol consumption. The Court noted that the parents have good parental capacities and entrusted the children to them until the end of April 2019. [ 10 ] On November 15, 2018 , the Court was seized with a provisional measure and entrusted the children to a foster family. Facts [ 11 ] The DYP worker heard about the mother’s intention to entrust [Center A] for the first time at the hearing.

She considers it’s a good idea as she is expecting the mother made some concrete steps to address and resolve her alcohol consumption issues. [ 12 ] Ms. [Social Worker 2] reminds that the children lived a lot of instability and it’s time for the mother to understand that she needs to maintain her achievements. Doing so, the recommended period of one year will be necessary. [ 13 ] Since the children have been entrusted to foster family, the father sees the children every day, on her side, the mother did not have any visit, but exercised phone calls every day.

The worker was on vacation and it was not possible to organize the visits, but she confirms she will start it. Analysis [ 14 ] Even if the parents made improvement, their situation remains very fragile. The mother fully recognizes her personal issues and wants to address it. The Court encourages her to do it as she has, as the father, good parental capacities. [ 15 ] The parents need this time to take care of them to finally be able to resume the care of their children. During that time, the children have to grow up in a safe environment.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the application; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family, chosen by the institution operating a child and youth protection centre; [ 19 ] AUTHORIZES a reintegration with one or the other parent; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the child be facilitated and the terms, the frequency and the modalities are determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behaviour in the presence of the child; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the parents seek help through Social Services concerning their alcohol, drugs and personal issues; [ 25 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling or assistance to the child, the parents and the foster family; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 27 ] ORDERS the execution of the present judgment by any peace officer; [ 28 ] THE WHOLE until the end of January 2020. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Ivan Lazarov, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the mother Me Isabelle Martineau, attorney for the father Date of hearing: January 17, 2019