2014 QCCQ 13110, 2014 QCCQ 13110

Protection de la jeunesse — 141794 2014 QCCQ 13110 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT […] TOWN […] Youth Division No: 640-41-001606-133 640-41-001607-131 640-41-001608-139 DATE: April 29, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2007 Y , born on […], 2008 Z , born on […], 2010 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services A, working in [TOWN A], [DISTRICT A] (Quebec) […] Applicant A , residing and domiciled in [TOWN A], [DISTRICT A] (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled [TOWN A], [DISTRICT A] (Quebec) […] 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 ] The Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to review its decision rendered on August 30, 2013, pursuant to

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act concerning the three children. The Court ordered that the three children remain with their parents. [ 2 ] The applicant asks the Court to review its decision for many different reasons but one of them is the fact that the parents do not collaborate with the Youth Protection services. [ 3 ] If the Court declares that the children's situation is still compromised the applicant asks the Court to entrust them to a foster home for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The parents are present and represented by a lawyer.

The children are represented by their lawyer. [ 5 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant was asking a placement for nine months. C, who testified on behalf of the applicant changed his mind during his testimony and stated that the placement could be for a period of six months in order to give a chance to the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and show that they can improve their situation. [ 6 ] The parents admit that the children's situation is still compromised pursuant to the law but they disagree with the measures recommended by the applicant.

They recommend to the Court to order a placement of the children in a foster home for a period of three months. [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts proven by preponderant evidence. The facts [ 8 ] On August 30, 2013, the Court declared that the security and development of X , born on […], 2007, Y , born on […], 2008 and Z, born on […], 2010 was compromised and ordered that they remain with their parents.

The Court also ordered the implementation of different measures included in an agreement reached by the parties after a very difficult hearing where the Director of Youth Protection evidence was weak and muddled. On August 30, the applicant was [ Social Worker 1] . [ 9 ] On August 30, the Court also recommended to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse to evaluate the services provided to the children and the parents by the Director of Youth Protection up to now.

The Court issued that order because it was of the opinion that [ Social Worker 1] didn't seem to know the family's situation. The Court was worried by the fact that the social

follow-up was not ensured or was not ensured adequately to that family. [ 10 ] On December 6, 2013, Judge Leduc ordered the provisional foster care of the three children for a period of 30 days and extended that period until January 16, 2014, date of the hearing pursuant to

section 95 of the Youth Protection Act . [ 11 ] On January 16, 2014, Judge Ouimette ordered the provisional foster care of the children for a period of 30 days and extended that period until March 13, with the consent of the parties. [ 12 ] D , C and E testified on behalf of the Director of Youth Protection. [ 13 ] According to the information gathered during the hearing [ Social Worker 1] was unable to come to Court to testify in this case.

It seems that her personal situation is very difficult and that she even has been bullied by some people in the community. [ 14 ] Right after the Court decision (August 30, 2013) the parents were collaborating with the Youth Protection services. But it didn't last. [ 15 ] After the hearing of December 6, 2013, [ Social Worker 1] asked the team leader to withdraw from this family's case. Her request was granted. [ 16 ] On December 2, [ Social Worker 1] and [ Social Worker 2] went to deliver a petition pursuant to

section 79 of the Youth Protection Act to the parents. They refused to receive the motion. [ 17 ] On December 6, 2013, [ Social Worker 1] attended Court in [Town B] for the hearing pursuant

section 79 of the Law. [ 18 ] On December 6, [ Social Worker 2] and [ Social Worker 5] went to the parents' residence to remove the children from their care according to the Court decision. The mother was absent. The father refused to obey the workers. The workers had to go back to the residence with police assistance.

Both parents were then very aggressive. [ 19 ] After December 6, the case was assigned to [ Social Worker 3] and [ Social Worker 2] . [ Social Worker 3] worked with the parents and [ Social Worker 2] with the children. [ 20 ] Since December 6, 2013, the parents have been collaborating again with the Youth Protection services but are still angry concerning their children's situation.

According to the evidence the mother has been using social media such as Facebook to talk about her problems regarding her situation with the Youth Protection. [ 21 ] The evidence is preponderant that the Youth Protection had a hard time to work with the parents and that the situation is still difficult. [ 22 ] However the evidence is also preponderant that since the August Court decision the parents have been negligent towards their children when they were under their care. [ 23 ] On October 15, 2013, the Youth Protection received a signalement from a nurse concerning the child X.

The child had a serious eye infection if left untreated she could have lost her sight. The father waited two weeks to take the child to the clinic. He explained to the Court that he tried to heal the child by himself before taking her to the clinic. He didn't go to the follow-ups requested by the nurse because he was babysitting the children. [ 24 ] Since the August hearing the children Y and X have been missing school for unjustified reasons. [ 25 ] The evidence is also preponderant that the parents situation in unstable and complicated.

On February 6, they were homeless because they have been kicked out from the maternal grandfather's residence. [ 26 ] It seems that the parents are back together and went back to live at the maternal grandfather's place. They are on the Housing waiting list. [ 27 ] The father smokes cannabis on a regular basis. He admits smoking two grams a week.

According to him he doesn't have any addiction problem. [ 28 ] Since October 30, 2013, the parents missed all their appointments with the Youth Protection worker. [ 29 ] The mother was pregnant at the date of this hearing and was sent to the hospital by plane twice because of her condition. [ 30 ] The evidence is also preponderant that the parents cannot visit the children in their foster home because the mother is unpredictable and can be aggressive towards people.

Analysis and decision [ 31 ] It was very difficult to have a clear picture of this family's situation. [ 32 ] According to [ Social Worker 4] who is a consultant for the Cree Board of Health and Social Services A and who testified at the hearing, [ Social Worker 2] and [ Social Worker 3] are working together in this situation and are exchanging information. [ 33 ] At the hearing « this exchange of information » was not obvious. The Director of Youth Protection witnesses didn't seem quite aware about this family's situation.

For example [ Social Worker 2] was unable to tell the Court what were the special needs of the children.

[ 34 ] Actually he informed the Court that the children were going well in their foster family and were in good health. As a result, the Court doesn't know much about the children's needs, the services offered to help them and their follow-up. [ 35 ] However the evidence is preponderant that the parents didn't collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and that it is affecting their children's life.

Also the parents live instability on many levels. [ 36 ] Considering all the evidence the Court concludes that a placement of the children in a foster home for three months is appropriate. [ 37 ] The parents have to demonstrate that they can improve their situation and become reliable parents.

For this, they must collaborate with the Youth Protection worker even if they don't like much that person. [ 38 ] The Court concludes that a three months placement is appropriate in order to see how the parents will collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection and how the follow-up given by the Director of Youth Protection will improve.

For these reasons the Court: [ 39 ] Grants partially the motion; [ 40 ] Orders the three children to be entrusted in a foster home for a period of three months; [ 41 ] The following orders are for a period of 12 months; [ 42 ] Orders that all the contacts between the parents and the children be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the length, frequency and modalities; [ 43 ] Orders the parents to remain sober in the presence of the children; [ 44 ] Orders the parents to submit to random drug test by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 45 ] Orders that Z be enrolled at the daycare; [ 46 ] Orders that X and Y attend school on a regular basis; [ 47 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counselling and assistance to the children and the parents; [ 48 ] Orders that X and Y received a psychological assessment; [ 49 ] Orders that the mother received a psychological assessment, the Court acknowledge the consent of the mother for the assessment; [ 50 ] Orders that the children received all the medical services required by their condition; [ 51 ] Orders the parents to collaborate actively with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 52 ] Orders the police to collaborate to the execution of this enactment; [ 53 ] Entrusts the situation of the three children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.C.Q.

Me Robert-André Adam, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Yan Massé, attorney for the children Me Claude Beaudet, attorney for the mother Me Clara Egervari, attorney for the father Dates of hearing: March 13 and 14, 2014