2012 QCCQ 11755, 2012 QCCQ 11755

Protection de la jeunesse — 123222 2012 QCCQ 11755 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000370-080 610-41-000371-088 DATE: May 31, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , a.r.h. exercising her profession at the CENTRE DE JEUNESSE A , having a place of having a place of business […] at Town A, district A Petitioner -and- X & Y, domiciled […] at Town B, district A Children -and- A, domiciled and residing at Town B, district A Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing […] at Town B, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review the last decision rendered on March 28, 2011 by Grimard J. concerning X and Y, both born […] , 2007. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the mother is present and represented by her lawyer.

Although absent, both children are represented by counsel. The father is absent even though he was duly served. The Court waited for his arrival, which never occurred. THE FACTS [ 3 ] There is preponderant evidence of the following facts. [ 4 ] On March 10, 2008, Gendron J. declared the security and development of both children endangered due to a serious risk that the parents would not provide for the basic needs of their children. [ 5 ] Since then, five different judgments have been rendered to help the parents stabilize their lives and provide the children with adequate stable supervision and care.

In sum, there are longstanding issues of alcohol and drug abuse, conjugal difficulties and violence, which ultimately led to the parents' separation. In addition, the mother struggles with mental health issues. [ 6 ] In the last Court order, Grimard J. entrusted the children to the mother, considering her progress in regards to her mental health issues and her personal stability.

As for the father, he had collaborated poorly with the delegate of the Director of Youth Protection and failed to address his anger management issues. [ 7 ] Since Grimard's J. order, the parents' relationship is strained as they constantly fight, bicker and denigrate one another in front of the children. The mother is of the opinion that the father harasses her by addressing matters, which have nothing to do with the children. The father was inconsistent with regard to the visits with his children.

However, the ones that occurred went well, as it is shown the father has adequate parental skills. [ 8 ] In last November, the mother entrusted the children to the father without any notice to the applicant. Many aspects of her life were then unstable. After being diagnosed for depression and anxiety issues, she stopped taking her medication. Moreover, the psychologist put an end to her follow-up for lack of attendance on her part. Her relationship with her boyfriend Mr C was also unstable as they were on and off. Finally, the mother had been drinking excessively on occasion.

[ 9 ] In addition, the children weren't attending daycare because of an unpaid bill. This led to a provisional order rendered on December 21, 2011, by which the Court entrusted the children to the father.

Following the order, the applicant's intention was to suggest to the Court that the children be entrusted to the father for a six-month period. [ 10 ] Notwithstanding the mother's complaints to the applicant pertaining to the father's lifestyle as to drug and alcohol consumption at his residence, the surprise visits made by the applicant at the father's dwelling showed that everything seemed adequate for the children. However, the children were still not attending daycare because they had lice and the father hadn’t taken the necessary steps to resolve the problem.

The applicant sent a home care worker at the father's residence in order to help him get rid of the lice that had infested the whole apartment. The mother showed up at the father's apartment and an argument between both parents occurred in front of the children and the home care worker. At that time, the home care worker suspected the father to be selling drugs. On February 28, 2012, day scheduled for the hearing in the present matter, the police searched the father's dwelling and seized 23 grams of marijuana on the kitchen table and 62 pills of amphetamines in the father's bedroom.

According to officer [Social Worker 2] and as the pictures tendered into evidence show, the father's apartment was in disarray and drug paraphernalia was pretty much everywhere. In light of the new facts, Grimard J. remanded the hearing and entrusted the children provisionally to the mother. [ 11 ] In addition to the expiration of the measures ordered by Grimard J., the above-mentioned evidence constitutes new facts in accordance to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . Moreover, the longstanding parental conflict amounts to psychological ill- treatment according to

section 38 (

c) of the Y.P.A. and proves the security and development of both children remain endangered. The Court is therefore authorized to review the previous decision. MEASURES TO REVIEW [ 12 ] The Director of Youth Protection now asks that the children be entrusted to the mother. [ 13 ] Since last February, the mother's personal situation was closely monitored by the applicant. The mother collaborates with the delegate of the Director of Youth Protection. She is now taking her medication for her depression and anxiety issues. She has stopped partying and a drug test passed for a job application shows she is drug free.

According to the applicant as well as to the mother's boyfriend, the mother's mood is much more stable. This obviously has a positive impact on her availability as a parent and on her relationship with Mr C. Furthermore, the mother is attending sessions of individual therapy with a psychologist. However, they have not yet addressed the issue of the ongoing conflict with the father. [ 14 ] Following the last provisional order, the applicant tried to put together a calendar for the visits between the children and the father. She met the father once who was very tense and in no emotional state to meet his children.

He expressed much animosity towards the mother and felt frustration in regards to his recent arrest. The father was supposed to contact the applicant to further discuss a calendar for the visits but he never did. Consequently, he hasn't seen the twins since his arrest. [ 15 ] The proposed measures are reasonable insofar as the mother is able to maintain her personal stability for more than a few months. Furthermore, the persistent parental conflict is bound to affect the children's wellbeing.

The Court understands that the mother is trying to free herself from her past with the father, but cannot allow this to be done at the children's expense. [ 16 ] After four years of trial and error, one of the main issues remains the parents' stability and therefore their capacity to take charge of the children on a day-to-day basis and in a continuous manner.

At this point in time, the Court believes it is premature to recommend that the parents seek a custody order at the Superior Court considering that their consistency and stability remain at the heart of the problem. [ 17 ] As for the contacts between the parents, the Court has no intention to prohibit them. It would be counter-productive to do so considering the parents will have to learn to put their differences and the pain from the past aside for the sake of their children.

If not, the children are at risk of developing serious behavioural disturbances. [ 18 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y, both born […], 2007, remain in danger in accordance with

section 38 (b) (2) of the Youth Protection Act and ADDS

section 38 (

c) Y.P.A.; [ 21 ] ORDERS that X and Y be entrusted to the care of the mother; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the father and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as to the frequency and modalities; [ 23 ] ORDERS the mother to continue her medical follow-up concerning her mental health issues and continue to take her prescribed medication; [ 24 ] ORDERS the mother to continue her psychological follow-up as long as required by her psychologist; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to attend a parental skills program; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the father seek professional help for his anger management issues; [ 27 ] ALLOWS that any professionals involved be permitted to exchange information regarding the attendance and general progress of the children or parent's situations, professional confidentially will apply for the rest; [ 28 ] ORDERS the parents to abstain from consuming drugs and alcohol when in presence of the children;

[ 29 ] ORDERS the parents no to denigrate, depreciate or belittle one another in presence of one or both children; [ 30 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of the measures ordered by the Court for a period of six months; [ 31 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the D.Y.P. to inform him of their current situation; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for a institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of six months; [ 33 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 34 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures. __________________________________ NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q.

M e Julie Lemire Lemire, Gaouette & Martel Centre jeunesse A Lawyer for the D.Y.P. M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the children M e Sylvie Gourd Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: April 11, 2012