2016 QCCQ 20162, 2016 QCCQ 20162

Protection de la jeunesse — 1610675 2016 QCCQ 20162 COURT OF QUEBEC « Youth division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] N° : 610-41-000673-152 DATE : December 7, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARC E.

GRIMARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER1], exercising her profession at the Centre Jeunesse A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A, [...]; Applicant -and- X, presently residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...]; Child -and- A, domiciled and residing at [...] in City C, district A, [...]; Mother -and- B, domiciled and residing at [...] in City C, district A, [...]; 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 ] On or around March 17, 2016, The Honourable Lucille Beauchemin, J.C.Q., rendered a decision in the situation of X, born on [...], 2010, entrusting the child to a foster family until September 30, 2016. Since then, both parents have been struggling with their alcohol problems, although the father seems to be able to control his consumption in presence of the child.

Currently, the mother still has unresolved alcohol consumption issue and is not collaborating with the services of the Director of Youth Protection. As for the father, although his situation has improved, he does not have a stable environment to receive the child at the present time. In light of the situation, The Director of Youth Protection seizes the Court of a motion under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act , asking this Court to entrust the child for a foster family for a period of 6 months. [ 2 ] This day, the child is not present in Court due to his young age, but represented by M e Michel-Étienne Parayre. The applicant, mother and father are present and represented. [ 3 ] The father admits to most of the allegations and is in agreement with the measures put forth by the Director of Youth Protection.

As for the mother, she denies any allegations in regards to her drinking and poor collaboration with the Youth Protection workers, and does not agree with the conclusions. [ 4 ] The child, through the voice of his lawyer, mentioned that he agrees to stay in a foster home for the time being. There are no admissions, given his young age. EVALUATION OF THE SITUATION [1] In May 2016, the mother called the applicant and told her that she was presently in a recovery home in Sault-Sainte-Marie, maybe for a period of three months. While she was away, the father moved into the mother’s house in City C.

During that time, X and his siblings regularly visited their father, sleeping over from time to time. [2] On or about June 22, 2016, the mother returned home for the children’s graduation and has stayed in City C since. At the time, the mother mentioned to the applicant that she would return to Sault-Sainte-Mary within a week, but failed to do so. [3] In July 2016, during a prolonged visit of the children with the mother at her residence in City C, there was an incident where drinking (by the mother and her friends) was involved in the presence of the children. The father was not in the house at the time.

When the respective foster families went to pick-up the children, they noticed that there were beer bottles and wine bottles everywhere in the house.

[4] Given the situation, the father asked the foster homes to have the children back. [ 5 ] At that time, the mother kicked the father out of the house. Consequently, the father is now left without a residence and has not been able to exercise regular rights of access with his children. [ 6 ] On or about May 2016, the father pleaded guilty to an assault on his son X. The contacts were maintained between the father and son, as planned by the Director of Youth Protection.

No presence of a third party was requested. [ 7 ] The father is still struggling with alcohol consumption problems, but has been able to refrain from drinking while in presence of his children. He has been present and involved with his children. The applicant describes the father as being honest, doing his follow- ups, and offering good collaboration to the Director of Youth Protection workers. [ 8 ] The father also completed a therapy in order to control his violent behaviour. [ 9 ] The child has a strong bond with his father and wishes to see him more often.

He is not afraid of his father anymore. [ 10 ] In turn, the mother is not collaborating with the Director of Youth Protection. Since her return in City C, she has not attended any follow-ups and has gone back to her old ways. ANALYSIS [ 11 ] Considering the admissions and the evidence presented, the Court, in the best interest of the child, sees fit to entrust the child to a foster family for a period of six months.

This period should allow the father to stabilize his situation while maintaining a strong bond with his son and collaborating effectively with the Director of Youth Protection, at which time it will be possible to reintegrate the child with his father.

FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the petition; [ 13 ] MAINTAINS that the situation of X, born on [...], 2010, is still compromised as declared in the last judgement; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of 6 months, and that after that period, he be entrusted to the father for a period of 6 months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the child and his parents be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, modality, and in presence of a third party if required; [ 16 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the child and his parents for a period of 12 months; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the parents continue their after care programs for as long as deemed necessary by the professionals; [ 18 ] ORDERS that the parents be sober in the presence of their child; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the parents make sure that the child is not in presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 20 ] ORDERS that the parents accept the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the child is in danger and the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents report regularly to the Director of Youth Protection; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the police force collaborate to the execution of the present order; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the situation of the child be entrusted to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the application of the present measures. __________________________________ Marc E.

Grimard, J.C.Q. M e Valérie Martel Counsel for the applicant M e Michel-Étienne Parayre Counsel for the child M e Sébastien Lebel Counsel for the mother

M e Daniel Ouellette Counsel for the father Date of hearing: October 14, 2016