2015 QCCQ 19921, 2015 QCCQ 19921

Protection de la jeunesse — 158043 2015 QCCQ 19921 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000612-135, 610-41-000613-133 & 610-41-000614-131 DATE: September 22, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE NANCY McKENNA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MRS [INTERVENNER1], exercising her profession at the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] in City A, district A, [...] Applicant -and- X, Y & Z residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Children -and- MRS A, domiciled and residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Mother -and- MR B, domiciled and residing at [...] in City B, district A, [...] Father of X & Z ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sec. 95 (1 and 2) and 75 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Court is seized with a petition for the review and the extension of a decision according to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act, concerning X, born on [...], 2012, Y, born on [...], 2006 and Z born on [...], 2011. More specifically, the Director of Youth Protection requests that the children remain in the foster family operated by the children’s aunt for the next six months. [ 2 ] At the hearing, both parents are present. However only the mother chose to be represented by counsel. All children are represented by their lawyer. Y is present in the Court house. 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 all children continue to be endangered and that there are grounds to extend the placement previously ordered. In addition, the parties agree with the Director’s main recommendation to entrust the children to the paternal aunt.

FACTS AND DECISION [ 4 ] The Director of Youth Protection has been involved with the family for many years. In sum, there are longstanding issues of alcohol and drug abuse, conjugal difficulties and violence. [ 5 ] In August 2014, the Court entrusted all the children to the paternal aunt for a period of one year in the hope that the parents would stabilize their own lives in order to assume their parental responsibilities. [ 6 ] Since the last judgment, the mother’s situation remains instable.

Her collaboration with the petitioner is difficult as she leaves the community without informing anyone of her whereabouts. After attending a treatment for her alcohol addiction, the mother is in need of an aftercare program, but failed to follow through. Because of her instability, the mother has not seen her sons since May.

[ 7 ] The father was released from jail in June and is trying to remain sober, but admits relapsing in August. On the day of the hearing, the parents stated they were no longer together but a few weeks prior they were trying to patch things up and even informed the applicant of their intentions to get custody of the children as a family. [ 8 ] The children feel safe and secure with their paternal aunt. The Court has had the opportunity to hear Mrs A and considers she is able and willing to care for the children.

Z will soon be starting kindergarten and the aunt is hopeful there will also be a place for him at daycare. X is also waiting for a place in daycare. As for Y, since he began living with his aunt, he is doing better in school. [ 9 ] In support of her recommendations, the applicant emphasizes the importance for the parents to put themselves in action right now considering their personal history and the consequences this has had on the children. This entails clearly addressing their addiction to alcohol and drugs. Aftercare for the mother is key.

They must also work on their parental skills. [ 10 ] The parents must address these issues that are impairing their parental capacities because without any concrete change in the next months, the applicant will have to develop a life project.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 11 ] GRANTS the petitions; [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the three children remain endangered; [ 13 ] ORDERS that all three children be entrusted to the foster family operated by Mrs C for a period of six months; [ 14 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counsel and assistance to the children, the parents as well as to the foster family for a period of eight months; [ 15 ] ORDERS that the contacts between the parents and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency and modalities; [ 16 ] ORDERS that both parents be sober when in the presence of the children; [ 17 ] ORDERS that both parents undergo a follow-up for their addiction problems as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 18 ] ALLOWS the exchange of information between all professionals involved in the family’s life, regarding the evolution of the situation in general, the client-professional privilege will remain for the rest; [ 19 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate in the execution of the present judgment; [ 20 ] 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 intégré de santé et de services sociaux Lawyer for the DYP M e Peggy Warolin Lawyer for the children M e Sébastien Lebel Lawyer for the mother Date of hearing: August 26, 2015