2017 QCCQ 19950, 2017 QCCQ 19950

Protection de la jeunesse — 1710342 2017 QCCQ 19950 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000236-176 DATE: September 13, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF : X, born on [...], 2014 CHILD ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A APPLICANT and A MOTHER and B FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ( Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act CQLR c.

P-34.1) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 submits a motion asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X, 3 years old, are endangered pursuant to

Section 38 b) 1 o iii) of the Youth Protection Act . [ 2 ] For the hearing, M e Camille Champeval acts on behalf of the applicant. M e Constantin Kiryakidis represents the child, M e Marie-Josée Ayoub, the mother, and M e Michel Grenier, the father. [ 3 ] Most of the allegations of the petition are admitted by one or the other parent. [ 4 ] As background, it appears that on November 27, 2014, a first judgment was rendered by Judge Jean Gravel, and that X was placed in a foster family for a period of one year, with a possible reintegration with the parents once treatment was completed.

The Court understands that this first file was closed since in 2016, Judge Denyse Leduc rendered a new judgment under Sections 38 and 91 Y.P.A. [ 5 ] At that time, the Court ratified a draft agreement signed by the parties. In this judgement we learn that on May 25, 2016, the child was placed in a foster home for a period of 30 days. On July 4, 2016, a second provisional agreement was signed, and X was placed in a foster family. The draft agreement was to the effect that the child be entrusted to the parents under strict conditions for a period of three months.

At the end of this court judgment, the file was closed again. [ 6 ] So the Court is seized with a third application asking the Court to declare that the security and development of X are endangered. [ 7 ] From the admissions made by the parents, it appears that the three other children of the couple are mainly taken care of by the maternal grandmother, where the mother usually lives. On May 12, 2017, X was placed under immediate protective measures because the mother left the home to go out drinking.

The child was later returned to the mother. [ 8 ] The parents maintain an on and off relationship, and for the time being the father is living in Town A and the mother in Town B. The mother reports that the father continues to use drugs and alcohol. [ 9 ] On June 10, 2017, the mother left again and did not inform of her whereabouts. On that date the child was placed in a foster home as the maternal grandmother was not in a position to take care of the child. [ 10 ] On June 12, the mother went home only to take a shower, change clothes, and then she left again.

[ 11 ] On June 15, the maternal grandmother, the mother and the worker discussed the situation of X, and it was decided that the child was to be entrusted to the maternal grandmother. [ 12 ] The day of the hearing, all the parties agree that the grandmother cannot take care of X because she already has a handful with the other children. [ 13 ] Both parents acknowledge that they have issues to resolve regarding intoxicating substances consumption, anger management and that they have to improve their collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection. [ 14 ] All the parties agree that the child be placed in a foster home for a period of one year, which is over the period of time established by

Section 91.1 of the law, given the judgment rendered in 2014. The parents must be aware that if at the end of this placement they have not resolved their issues, a life plan will be established for the child. For the time being, the parents state that they will collaborate, so there is still a chance that the child returns to one or the other parent on a short term period. FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 15 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 16 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, born on [...], 2014, are endangered pursuant to

Section 38 b)1 o iii) Y.P.A.; [ 17 ] ORDERS the placement of the child in a foster home for a period of one year, with a possible reintegration to the mother’s care after nine months under the following conditions: - that the mother engage and complete a substance abuse treatment program; - that she maintain her sobriety for at least four consecutive months; - that she engage and complete a grieving program; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the father seek treatment for his own issues, such as alcohol and drug consumption and anger management; [ 19 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that a Community Worker be assigned in Town A to ensure the follow-up with the father in order for him to receive the adequate services; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the child be encouraged and supervised by the Director as for modalities and frequency; [ 21 ] ORDERS the parents to be and remain sober at all time when in presence of the child; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents not to put the child in presence of people under the influence of intoxicating substances; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child attend daycare on a fulltime basis; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the child receive all services deemed necessary (social and health services); [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and the parents for a period of one year; [ 26 ] MAINTAINS the relationship between the child and the maternal grandmother; [ 27 ] ENCOURAGES the access rights between the child and the maternal grandmother; [ 28 ] ORDERS that these access rights be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities and the frequency; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Champeval DYP A Counsel for Youth Protection M e Constantin Kiryakidis Centre communautaire juridique A Counsel for the child M e Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother M e Michel Grenier

Counsel for the father Date of hearing: July 27, 2017