2013 QCCQ 17783, 2013 QCCQ 17783

Protection de la jeunesse — 136150 2013 QCCQ 17783 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT […] LOCALITY […] Youth Division Nos. 615-41-001839-132 615-41-001837-136 615-41-001838-134 DATE: October 15, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CONCERNING: X, born on [...], 2006 Y, born on [...], 2010 Z, born on [...], 2011 SOCIAL WORKER 1 , social worker, exercising her profession at the Centre jeunesse A, having a place of business at […], in city A, District A, province of Québec, […] Petitioner and A , domiciled and residing at […], in city B, District A, province of Québec, […] Mother and B , domiciled and residing at […], in city C, District B, province of Québec, […] Father of the child X and C , domiciled and residing at […], in city C, District B, province of Québec […] Father of the children Y and Z JUDGMENT ( sections 38 and 75 , Youth Protection Act , R.S.Q., c.

P-34.1) I - INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The Court is seized of a motion for protection under sections 38 and 75 of the Youth Protection Act , [1] concerning the situation of the children X, born on [...], 2006, Y, born on […], 2010 and Z, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] The mother, A, did not attend the hearing on the motion since she has entered a therapy centre for her substance abuse problems.

However, she mandated an attorney to represent her and submit her views to the Court. [ 3 ] She did not contest the motion and she agreed with the recommendations for the placement of her three children with a foster family for a period of nine (9) months, with a gradual return to her home environment as soon as the situation allows. [ 4 ] As concerns C, the father of the children Y and Z, he was absent and requested through his attorney, Mtre. Cossette, that his children be entrusted to his mother, D. The Court heard Ms. D, who did not seek to have the children Y and Z entrusted to her.

She acknowledged that she has no significant ties with them, as opposed to her ties with the child X. [ 5 ] The father of the child X, B, was present. He was represented by Mtre. Tania Bélanger. He did not contest the motion for protection, but asked that the child X be entrusted to his mother, D. II - ANALYSIS AND DECISION Declaration of endangerment [ 6 ] The evidence mainly consists of the admissions of the parties and the documents filed to serve as testimony. [ 7 ] As concerns the child X, the parents separated in 2007.

The child was entrusted to the mother further to a Superior Court judgment granting her legal custody. [ 8 ] The father lives in the community of city C and is little involved in the child's life.

[ 9 ] The mother has difficulty assuming her parental responsibilities. She has an alcohol problem that interferes with her ability to meet the children's needs. [ 10 ] She asked that her children be placed so she could take steps to be admitted to a therapy centre. [ 11 ] On May 28, 2013, the mother retracted and withdrew her request.

On May 31, 2013, she contacted social services while under the influence of alcohol and again asked that her children be placed because of her drinking problems. [ 12 ] On May 31, 2013, following the intervention of social services, the children were placed with her mother-in-law, E. [ 13 ] X's father, B, has an alcohol and drug problem. He also lacks a stable residence. Until recently, he lived at his mother's home. [ 14 ] C, the father of the two younger children, is not involved in his children's lives. He has alcohol and drug problems.

He lives in the community but has no fixed domicile. [ 15 ] The Court concludes that there is preponderant evidence that, because of the parents' lifestyles and their personal difficulties, there is a risk that the children's basic needs will not be met. [ 16 ] Consequently, the Court declares that the security and development of the children are in danger under subparagraph ( b )(2) of

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act . Applicable measures [ 17 ] The dispute concerns mainly the placement of the child X with a foster family. [ 18 ] Although the father of the children Y and Z would like his children to be entrusted to his mother, she testified that she wanted to assume responsibility for X alone. She said that she had significant ties with the child and that such was not the case with the two younger children.

She has had less contact with them and the ties were said to be less significant. [ 19 ] After hearing the testimony of the children’s paternal grandmother, D, the Court does not doubt her good intentions in offering to take in her grandson X. [ 20 ] However, the Court must examine the child's interest from a broader perspective, taking into account the fact that he is now developing in a known and stable environment. He currently goes to the recreational centre of the A Centre roughly four days a week.

He adapted quite well to his school environment and his foster environment. [ 21 ] The life plan for this child is to return him to his mother as soon as possible, given that he has significant emotional ties with her. The mother is currently in a therapy centre outside the region, but on leaving the centre, she will come back to city A to live.

If the child were entrusted to his paternal grandmother in the A region, this would make a return to his mother’s home more complex because of the distance involved. [ 22 ] The Court considers that the child should be kept in his current environment, while encouraging contact with the paternal grandmother. For that purpose, extended contact in her home environment could be organized, taking into account availability and the school calendar.

The grandmother's involvement is a favourable element in the child's life and there is every reason to encourage contact. [ 23 ] It should also be pointed out that there is no conflict between the mother and the grandmother. Their relationship appears to be one of mutual respect. Hence, a solution that might create a climate of conflict should be avoided. The mother never deprived the grandmother of contact with her grandson. In fact, the mother was ambivalent about the possibility of entrusting the child X to his grandmother rather than a foster family.

Given the context, maintaining the relationship between the child and his grandmother appears to be a measure that is in the child's interest.

It is important that he be allowed to keep in contact with the members of his family who show a sustained interest in him. [ 24 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: Decision in respect of the child X [ 25 ] GRANTS this motion; [ 26 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2006, are in danger; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the child be placed with a foster family for a period of nine (9) months, with a gradual return to the mother's family environment as soon as the situation allows; [ 28 ] ORDERS that contact between the child and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards its frequency and terms, including the presence of a third party; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the interpersonal relations between the child and the paternal grandmother, D, be maintained; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES extended visits to the paternal grandmother's family environment; [ 31 ] ORDERS the mother to complete the therapy begun and to take

part in post-therapy follow-up in accordance with the recommendations of the professionals; [ 32 ] ORDERS the father to undergo a substance abuse assessment and to follow the follow-up recommendations of the professionals, including, where recommended, therapy;

[ 33 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the parents and the child for a period of eighteen (18) months; [ 34 ] RECOMMENDS that contact between the child and his siblings be encouraged; [ 35 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection for enforcement of this order; [ 36 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate in enforcing this order, if required by the Director of Youth Protection; Decision in respect of the children Y and Z [ 37 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children Y, born on [...], 2010, and Z, born on [...], 2011, are in danger; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the children be placed with a foster family for a period of nine (9) months, with a gradual return to the mother's family environment as soon as the situation allows; [ 40 ] ORDERS that contact between the children and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as regards its frequency and terms, including the presence of a third party; [ 41 ] ORDERS that the interpersonal relations between the child and the paternal grandmother, D, be maintained; [ 42 ] ORDERS the mother to complete the therapy begun and to take

part in post-therapy follow-up in accordance with the recommendations of the professionals; [ 43 ] RECOMMENDS that the father take

part in therapy and receive substance abuse follow-up in accordance with the recommendations of the professionals; [ 44 ] RECOMMENDS that contact between the children and their siblings be encouraged; [ 45 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection for enforcement of this order; [ 46 ] ORDERS that aid, counselling and assistance be provided to the parents and the children for a period of eighteen (18) months; [ 47 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate in enforcing this order, if required by the Director of Youth Protection . __________________________________ RENÉE LEMOINE J.C.Q.

Mtre. Mylène Grondin Counsel for the children Mtre. Annie Gaouette Counsel for the petitioner Mtre. Tania Bélanger Counsel for the father of the child X Mtre. Claude Cossette Counsel for the father of the children Y and Z Mtre. Julie Beaumont-Lapointe Counsel for the mother Date of hearing: August 13, 2013