2017 QCCQ 11823, 2017 QCCQ 11823

Protection de la jeunesse — 175110 2017 QCCQ 11823 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division Nos.: 614-41-000086-167, 614-41-000087-165, 614-41-000088-163 and 614-41-000089-161 DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X, born on [...], 2006 Y, born on [...], 2008 Z, born on [...], 2010 A, born on [...], 2012 MRS [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A, working in City A, Quebec, District A Applicant and MRS B, residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, District A Mother and MR C, residing and domiciled in City A, Quebec, District A Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 Y.P.A., R.S.Q. c.

P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ 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 A submits to the Court four motions for review of the decisions rendered on August 4, 2016 by Honourable Denise Descôteaux concerning X (2006-[...]), Y (2008-[...]), Z (2010-[...]) and A (2012-[...]).

After declaring their security and development in danger, she entrusted the children to foster care for one year with specific orders for the parents. [ 2 ] Now, the applicant asks for the extension of the children’s placement in foster homes for another period of 12 months. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the mother and the father are present, assisted by Me Michel Grenier and Me Marie-Josée Ayoub. Me Yan Massé represents the children and Me Adélia Ferreira, the applicant.

The parties agree with a common hearing. [ 4 ] The evidence of the allegations is constituted by the admissions of the parties, the testimonies of the mother and the social worker and the revision report. [ 5 ] The following facts are proved by preponderant evidence. The parents have not taken the steps recommended to stabilize their situation. The mother continues to abuse alcohol. She was again seen intoxicated in the community last June 12, 2017. [ 6 ] She attended two different treatment programs in 2016 but she relapsed soon after her return in the community.

She lives with the maternal grandmother, but they have a strained relationship. [ 7 ] Even though, the mother has regular contacts with the children. She has had once a month sleeping over with them, even if she collaborates irregularly with the social worker. [ 8 ] The father is quite irregular in his contacts with the children. He recently had another child with his girlfriend. He did not attend any treatment. His situation remains the same. [ 9 ] The parents are well aware of the specific disposition of

section 91 Y.P.A. They know that the children are waiting for them. Even though, the father does not want to be ordered to attend treatment, only to be recommended. [ 10 ] The mother declares she is ready to attend another treatment. But even, she is pregnant now and she acknowledges that she still

consume alcohol, being well informed of the negative consequences. [ 11 ] In the light of the foregoing and given the developments in the family’s situation, it is in the children’s best interest to remain in their foster families. [ 12 ] As an additional source of motivation for the mother, the social worker asks that progressive reintegration of the children be recommended after the mother success to maintain four months of sobriety when she will come back from treatment. [ 13 ] The Court accepts to make such recommendation, but also adds that the Director of Youth Protection has to prepare a life project for those children if the mother does not collaborate actively and if the father remain passive. [ 14 ] Given the admissions by the parents and their agreement with specific measures; [ 15 ] Given the evidence, THE COURT: [ 16 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 17 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X, Y, Z and A are still in danger; [ 18 ] ORDERS the placement of the four children X, Y, Z and A in foster families for one year; [ 19 ] AUTHORIZES the progressive reinsertion of the children with the mother if she attends treatment for alcohol and drugs consumption and if she maintains four months of sobriety in the community after her return; [ 20 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to supervise (duration, location, frequency and modalities) the visits between the parents and the children; [ 21 ] ORDERS the mother to attend treatment for alcohol and drugs consumption and follow all the recommendations provided by the specialists; [ 22 ] RECOMMENDS the father to attend therapy for his alcohol and personal issues; [ 23 ] ORDERS the parents to be sober in presence of the children; [ 24 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to make unannounced visits at the family household when the children are with the parents; [ 25 ] ORDERS the mother to seek help for her aggressive behaviour; [ 26 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to provide aid, counselling and assistance to the parents and the children for one year; [ 27 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the Director of Youth Protection and to follow his recommendations; [ 28 ] ORDERS the police to collaborate with the execution of the present judgment if requested; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of executing this judgment. __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q.

Me Adélia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the mother Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the father Me Yan Massé Attorney for the children Date of hearing: July 7, 2017