2015 QCCQ 19920, 2015 QCCQ 19920

Protection de la jeunesse — 157263 2015 QCCQ 19920 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000559-120 & 610-41-000560-128 DATE: June 19, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [INTERVENEER 1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux, having a place of business at [...] at City A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X & Y, domiciled at [...] at City B, district A, [...] Children -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] at City B, district A, [...] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing [...] at City B, district A, [...] Father of X ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 & 2) and 75 Y.P.A.) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application under

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act in which it asks the Court to review and extend a decision rendered on May 14, 2014, by Bélanger J., concerning, X, born on [...], 2009 and Y, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] The children are absent but are represented by their lawyer. For their part, the parents are present and represented by counsel. Although the mother recognizes Mr B as the biological father of Y, he has not been declared as such on the child’s birth certificate. The Court decides it is in the best interest of Y that Mr B be granted the status of party following

section 81, subparagraph 3 of the Youth Protection Act. It is imperative that the father files an application to the Superior Court in order to be declared father of the child. ISSUE TO RESOLVE [ 3 ] The present case does not raise any litigious issue since the parties admit that the security and the development of both children continue to be endangered and that there are grounds to review the last decision. In addition, the parties agree with the Director’s main recommendation to entrust the children to the maternal grandmother.

FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] On July 6, 2012, Grimard J. declared the security and the development of both children endangered due to parental neglect and because the children were subject to psychological ill-treatment. [ 5 ] Since then, three 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.

When under the influence of alcohol, fights have occurred between the parents, which required police intervention and sometimes leading to criminal charges. [ 6 ] In fact, since the last judgment the police were called at least four times following incidents of conjugal violence. On each occasion, both parents were intoxicated by alcohol. On two other occasions, the police were called because one of the parents failed to comply with undertakings stemming from criminal court.

[ 7 ] In the past year, the parents have tried on a few occasions to attend treatment programs for their alcohol and drug addiction. Some of the attempts failed. During spring both parents attended centers for their substance abuse. Although they both completed their programs, the mother relapsed not long after and still struggles with her addiction. She knows she has to go back to treatment, but she remains hesitant and fragile. [ 8 ] As for the father, the final report from the Wanaki Centre filed in the court record shows that the father addressed the underlying issues that bring him to use.

Some of the issues involved jealousy and codependency. This self-reflection has brought the father to put into question his relationship with the mother considering the risk of relapse if the mother is consuming. [ 9 ] As a result, the father moved from City B to First Nation A at his grandmother’s. He is trying to put his sobriety first but the mother’s reaction and the couple’s old patterns make it difficult for the father to stick to his decision.

To this day the parents’ relationship remains unclear. [ 10 ] From the evidence heard, it appears that the parents are not at the same stage with regards to their personal journey and sobriety. [ 11 ] Meanwhile, X is attending kindergarten and is doing well. However, he does suffer from a certain speech delay that must be further investigated. [ 12 ] As for Y, she is described as a shy child that needs to be surrounded by known people.

She is presently attending daycare and is doing well. [ 13 ] Both children feel safe and secure with their maternal grandmother who has always watched over them during the parents’ binge drinking. The Court has had the opportunity to hear Mrs A and considers she is able and willing to care for the children, at least, on a short term basis. [ 14 ] Even though the evidence shows that the children have most likely not witnessed the parents’ violence, their well-being is still in jeopardy since the care provided to them depends solely on their parents’ drinking.

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. [ 15 ] During the next months the mother must attend and complete another treatment program. As for the father, aftercare is key. He will also have to clarify his intentions with regard to his relationship with the mother. Excessive and cyclic alcohol and drug consumption must be considered as a symptom of inner discomfort. The parents are invited to continue to address these issues that are impairing their parental capacities.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 16 ] GRANTS both petitions; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of both children remain endangered; [ 18 ] ORDERS that both children be entrusted to their maternal grandmother C for a period of six months with reintegration with the parents if the situation allows it; [ 19 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to the foster family operated by C, in the event that she is accredited as such by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the parents for a period of 12 months; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents report themselves every two weeks to the Director of Youth Protection on the measures they apply in their own regard or in the children’s regard to put an end to the situation in which the security or development of the children are in danger; [ 22 ] ORDERS that the parents receive services for their addiction at any specialised worker of their choice from the Centre Normand or a NNADAP worker as long as deemed necessary; [ 23 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother attend a treatment centre with regards to her alcohol problem; [ 24 ] ORDERS the parents not to consume any drugs or alcohol in the presence of both children; [ 25 ] ORDERS both parents to ensure that their children are not in the presence of people under the influence of drugs or alcohol; [ 26 ] ORDERS that both parents abstain from arguing when in the presence of the children; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the parents receive the necessary services in regards to their relationship issues as long as deemed necessary in the event that they decide to stay together; [ 28 ] ALLOWS the exchange of information between all professionals implicated with the family with regards to the situation in general, the patient-professional privilege will remain for the rest; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection following a calendar agreed upon the parties; [ 30 ] ORDERS that X receive specific health care and health services notably that he undergo an assessment for his speech and that

he benefit from a follow-up, if deemed necessary; [ 31 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 32 ] ENTRUSTS the children’s situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing the measures ordered by the Court. __________________________________ 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 Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the mother M e Daniel Ouellette Legal Aid Lawyer for the father Date of hearing: June 3, 2015