2012 QCCQ 15595, 2012 QCCQ 15595

Protection de la jeunesse — 123270 2012 QCCQ 15595 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division NOS: 640-41-001383-113 and 640-41-001384-111 DATE: June 1, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on […], 2003 Y, born on […], 2006 MS. [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., Quebec, district A Petitioner and MR.

A, residing and domiciled in Town A, Quebec, district A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 (par. 1) Y.P.A. , chap. P-34.1 R.S.Q. ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. [Social Worker 1], delegate to the Director of Youth Protection A, is seizing the Court of two petitions for reviewing the last judgment rendered on September 27, 2011 by Judge Nancy McKenna concerning the situation of X, 8 years old, and Y, 6 years old, children of Mr. A.

She is asking for the extension of the children's foster placement for 12 months and for a psychological assessment of the two children with a follow-up if needed. [ 2 ] At the hearing, the children are represented by Me Yan Massé, the father by Me Angela Tommasel and the petitioner by Me Robert-André Adam. [ 3 ] The father denies all the allegations except that related to not seeking help for his alcohol and drug problems.

He disagrees with the recommendations included in the filed Review Report. [ 4 ] Evidence for the new facts is constituted of the testimonies of the father and the Social Worker and of her Review Report. [ 5 ] In his testimony, the father denies all the problems previously proven and identified by the Court when Judge McKenna on September 27, 2011 declared the security and development of the children in danger. He did not comply with any Court orders. [ 6 ] He still displays alcohol and drug-related problems and did not collaborate in any treatment or therapy. He did not respect the visitation

schedule with the children. He received them regularly at home without advising the Social Worker. He did not meet with the Social Worker. [ 7 ] On February 11, 2012, he assaulted his son Y while intoxicated, but still denies it even if Y confirmed it on May 12. The grandfather was present but did not take any steps to protect him. [ 8 ] Some strange needs of X expressed by her and confirmed by the father require more investigation. In fact, the child would need to take a shower at lunchtime regularly because she does painting in the morning at school. The teacher denied having done painting in class.

As the girl is very reserved, it is hard to find out the real motives. Also, the child tends to protect her father over her own protection. [ 9 ] The reluctance and distrust shown by Mr. A explain the reasons why the children's situation has remained the same. The motives for which the security and development of these children were declared in danger are still present. Consequently, based on such evidence, the Court cannot return the children with their father. The latter has to modify his way of life and resolve many personal issues.

He needs to be more collaborative, open and motivated about his issues before considering the children's reintegration. [ 10 ] To ensure his collaboration, the Court will order that the father receive the assistance of a Key Educator when the children visit

him, to develop his empathy towards the children and to become more attentive to their needs. The Key Educator may also help the father with parental skills development. [ 11 ] CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 13 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X and Y are still in danger; [ 14 ] ORDERS the placement of X and Y in a foster home for a period of nine months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the children be assessed by a psychologist and provided with a follow-up if needed; [ 16 ] ORDERS the father to have a regular follow-up with psychologist Dr.

Beltempo; [ 17 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide the father and the children with the services of a Key Educator for one year; [ 18 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the father and the children for a period of one year; [ 19 ] ORDERS the father to collaborate actively with the Key Educator and the Social Worker; [ 20 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise all the visits and access of the children with their father, and for the first month, AUTHORISES three visits per week of the children at their father's place at lunch time, and ALLOWS the presence of the Key Educator, or the Social Worker or any person appointed by her.

After one month, the children will be allowed to have supper twice a week with their father under supervision, if the father collaborates.

Any increase in frequency and duration of the visits will be at the discretion of the Director of Youth Protection; [ 21 ] Following those visits, a calendar must be prepared and submitted to the children and the father, and if they do not respect the conditions set out by the Social Worker in her obligation to supervise the visits, the Court ALLOWS the Director of Youth Protection to remove the children and place them in another community and may also ask the Court that the visitation and access rights be suspended; [ 22 ] ORDERS the father to be sober in the presence of the children; [ 23 ] ORDERS any police officer to collaborate in the execution of the present Court order; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this enactment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, Attorney for the petitioner Me Angela Tommasel, Attorney for the father Me Yan Massé, Attorney for the children Date of hearing: April 5, 2012