2016 QCCQ 11613, 2016 QCCQ 11613

Protection de la jeunesse — 165045 2016 QCCQ 11613 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000110-165 614-41-000112-161 614-41-000113-169 DATE: August 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2001 Y , born on [...], 2002 Z , born on [...], 2005 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Health and Social Services A, working in Town A, A district (Quebec) [...] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled in Town A, A district (Quebec) [...] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town A, A district (Quebec) [...] Father ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to declare the security or development of X, born on [...], 2001, Y, born on [...], 2002 and Z, born on [...], 2005, compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . If the Court concludes that the children’s situation are compromised the applicant asks an order to entrust each child in a foster home for a period of nine months with reintegration to the care of either parent in six months if the situation allows it. [ 2 ] The parents are present and represented.

The children are present as well and represented. [ 3 ] The father does not challenge the motions and agrees with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures. [ 4 ] The mother acknowledges that the security or development of all the children is in danger pursuant to the Law. She agrees with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures even though she would like to have her children back with her right away.

Even though she asks for a reintegration to one of the parents’ care after three months instead of six. [ 5 ] The children do not challenge the motions and agree with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures. The facts [ 6 ] The Court considers the following facts proven by preponderant evidence. [ 7 ] Prior to the Youth Protection involvement in their lives the children were living with their mother.

The father had regular contacts with them. [ 8 ] The parents are separated for many years and the mother has a new spouse for a few years. [ 9 ] The father resides with his parents in a four bedroom house with his adult siblings (two sisters and one brother). [ 10 ] The maternal grandmother is able to provide good care to the children while maintaining a good relationship with all family members. The children are bonded to her. [ 11 ] The paternal grandmother is also a source of support. However there is a tenuous relationship between herself and the mother.

Due to that situation the children have often felt their tension and at times have witnessed the grandmother denigrating the mother.

[ 12 ] The children have been exposed to their mother’s lifestyle that is marked with conjugal violence and alcohol abuse. The father although involved has not assumed full time care of the children even though he was aware from the start that the children were exposed to their mother’s chaotic environment. [ 13 ] On May 15, 2016, the Director of Youth Protection received a report concerning a situation of conjugal violence between the mother and her spouse while X was present.

The mother and her spouse were both intoxicated. [ 14 ] The police had to intervene because the mother was violent and they had to detain her. X refused to remain at home. She was traumatized by witnessing that event and by her mother taken away by the police. [ 15 ] During that event Y and Z were with their grandparents. [ 16 ] The Director of Youth Protection took immediate measures to entrust X to a foster home. On May 18, 2016, the Court ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of X to a foster home until June 14, 2016. [ 17 ] Around May 17, 2016, Y and Z were entrusted back to the mother.

On May 18, 2016, the Director of Youth Protection received a report concerning the children to the effect that they were also witnessing the drinking and violence at the mother’s home. [ 18 ] The Director of Youth Protection took immediate protective measures and entrusted them to their father. On June 1 st , 2016, the Court ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the children for a maximum period of 30 days and took judicial notice that the Director of Youth Protection intended to entrust them to their maternal grandmother. The hearing of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act was set on June 14, 2016. • The children [ 19 ] Z is a verbal child and he is close with his siblings. He is doing very well in school and is currently in grade five in French. He has a very close relationship with his mother. [ 20 ] Y initially comes out as a shy and withdrawn, but once comfortable she is able to express her thoughts and feelings. She cannot be viewed as a protective factor for her brother because she seeks to leave in case of conflicts. [ 21 ] X can express herself very well.

The traumatic event involving her mother and spouse caused X to experiencing a difficult time to concentrate in school. [ 22 ] X explained to the Youth Protection worker that drinking in her home has gone on so long that at times she experiences a lose in sleep because she feels anxiety fearing that an argument will erupt between her mother and her spouse. X is starting to be resentful towards her mother and she is also becoming defiant. Decision [ 23 ] The mother challenges the period of reintegration of the children with one of their parents.

She asks to reduce the period to three instead of six months. [ 24 ] The evidence reveals that the mother has a drinking problem and is involved in an unhealthy relationship with her spouse. She admits those issues. [ 25 ] The children were exposed to situations of drinking and conjugal violence. All the three children have been affected by those events that made them to feel unsafe in their home environment. [ 26 ] Even if the mother admits having a drinking problem she is not involved in any treatment program or counselling to resolve it.

She claims that she can quit on her own and that her spouse will try to do it as well. As for her spouse the mother explains that he provides for the family and helps her to impose discipline on the children. [ 27 ] The evidence is preponderant that the mother even if she acknowledges having some issues does not realise how important they are and how they impact the children. Those issues are still far to be solved. [ 28 ] The father is aware of the violence that his children are exposed to but has not mobilized himself to ensure their protection.

He will have to be more active in order to find a more suitable house to receive his children. [ 29 ] The children can depend on the maternal grandmother who is a great support emotionally and had provided them lodging in moments of crisis. She is able to develop a good relationship with Director of Youth Protection. [ 30 ] The Court concludes that a six months period is necessary to start reintegration of the children with one of their parents.

This period of time will allow the parents to start resolving their personal issues which are very important. [ 31 ] The Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2001, Y, born on [...], 2002 and Z, born on [...], 2005, are compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii and

c) of the Youth Protection Act . The Court concludes as well that the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the children’s best interest. For these reasons the Court: [ 32 ] Grants the motions; [ 33 ] Declares that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2001, Y, born on [...], 2002 and Z, born on [...], 2005, are compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii and

c) of the Youth Protection Act ;

[ 34 ] Orders the following measures for a period of nine months; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted in a foster home with a possible reintegration to the care of one of the parents within six months if the situation allows it; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the children and the parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for their frequency, modalities and length; [ 37 ] Allows the mother to have minimal contacts with her children every week-end for a duration of two hours at least; [ 38 ] ORDERS the father to provide his work

schedule to the Director of Youth Protection within one week from today; [ 39 ] Allows the father to have minimal contacts with his children once every two weeks for a duration of two hours at least; [ 40 ] ORDERS the mother to meet with the NNADAP worker and to follow all the recommendations related to alcohol issue or any other personal issue; [ 41 ] ORDERS the mother to ensure that the children are not exposed to any form of violence and/or individuals under the influence of alcohol during visits; [ 42 ] orders that the mother remains sober in the presence of the children; [ 43 ] Takes judicial notice of the parents’ consent and orders that the Director of Youth Protection be authorized to obtain and share information with all services providers working with the family related to attendance and degree of participation; [ 44 ] Takes judicial notice of X’s consent and orders that the youth receives all medical services for her health including a psychological assessment with a follow-up if deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 45 ] ORDERS that a copy of this assessment be send to the Director of Youth Protection when it will be finished; [ 46 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the family; [ 47 ] Orders the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 48 ] entrusts the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C.

Me Gabriel Gaudreault, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Constantin Kiryakidis, attorney for the children Me Michel Grenier, attorney for the mother Me Myriam Gaudreault, attorney for the father Date of hearing: July 5, 2016