2017 QCCQ 18487, 2017 QCCQ 18487

Protection de la jeunesse — 178913 2017 QCCQ 18487 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000212-177 614-41-000215-170 614-41-000216-178 DATE: November 22, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2004 Y, born on […], 2007 Z, born on […], 2008 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of A Applicant and A, residing and domiciled in […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled in […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 and 91 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 of A (D.Y.P.) seizes the Court with three motions in revision of the last judgment rendered on May 23, 2017 by Honourable judge Lucille Chabot, concerning the situations of X (13 years old), Z (9 years old) and Y (10 years old). [ 2 ] The applicant duly authorised, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], asks that the children remain placed in foster homes for three months with reintegration with the mother. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are present.

Me Michel Grenier represents the mother, Me Yan Massé the children and Me Amélia Ferreira the applicant. [ 4 ] The parents admit the allegations in support of the revision and agree with the measures proposed. [ 5 ] The children agree with the measures. The evidence is completed with the social worker’s testimony and her revision report. [ 6 ] The Court considers that there is a preponderance evidence that: − The mother attended treatment in [Town A] for six weeks on September 17, 2017. The delay to attend the treatment was because her medicare card was expired.

She competed her therapy and now has to maintain her sobriety in the community. She lives separate from the father and has no intention of reconciling; − The father lives with an oldest son, C, at the paternal grand-parent’s home. There is no sufficient space there to receive all the children and consequently they remained in their foster home during the mother’s therapy. The father attended therapy in [Town B] for a week last October. He is waiting for further follow up appointments.

The father has to work outside the community sometimes and consequently is not in position to assume the children; − The mother is stabilising her situation. She works now and regularly meets her children. She has her own house, even if for now she lives with her parents. She wants to meet the psychologist and wants her children to receive also counselling. X already met the psychologist on September and is ready to receive follow-up;

− The children are affected by the parent’s separation and like them, they need help; − The mother will go for counselling with the children in November. [ 7 ] Considering the mother’s improvement, the fact that she will continue to seek for services for herself and the children; [ 8 ] Considering that she is able to assume the children and to provide them; [ 9 ] Considering that the father is willing to support the mother even if they are separated, and that they both accept to collaborate with the social worker; [ 10 ] Considering the whole evidence; CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on […], 2004, Y, born on […], 2007 and Z, born on […], 2008 are still in danger; [ 13 ] ORDERS their placement in foster home for three months with reintegration with the mother; [ 14 ] ORDERS the mother to follow her after cure plan from treatment centre; [ 15 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the children for one year; [ 16 ] AUTHORIZES all service providers to the family to share information with the D.Y.P. regarding the evaluation of the situation of their clients; [ 17 ] ORDERS the D.Y.P. to supervise the contacts between the father and the children concerning the duration end the frequency; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents engage in counselling to ensure they can co-parent the children effectively; [ 19 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate to the execution of this order if required; [ 20 ] ENTRUST the situation of the children to the D.Y.P. who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Yan Massé Attorney for the children Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Mr. B Representing himself Date of hearing: November 8, 2017