2019 QCCQ 17809, 2019 QCCQ 17809

Protection de la jeunesse — 196180 2019 QCCQ 17809 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF […] COMMUNITY OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000371-189 614-41-000372-187 614-41-000373-185 DATE: May 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], youth protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A Applicant and X, born on […], 2007 Y, born on […], 2011 Z, born on […], 2013 Children and A, residing and domiciled at […] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at […] Father ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (sections 95 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, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection A (the Director) asks the Court to review the judgments rendered on November 14, 2018, in the situation of X, 11 years old, Y, 8 years old and Z, 6 years old. The Director recommends that the placement of the children in foster care be extended for 6 months with reintegration with the mother at the exclusion of the father. [ 2 ] The parents and the children are present at the hearing, all represented.

Me Adelia Ferreira represents the petitioner. [ 3 ] The parents disagree with the recommendations. [ 4 ] A revision report is filed. Mrs. A, the mother, and Mrs. [Social Worker 2], the social worker, testified. [ 5 ] It is proved that the mother attended and completed a six-week therapy in [region A] last March 3, 2019. Her situation improved significantly since. She maintains regular contacts with her children during their placement. [ 6 ] X remains in the foster home of her paternal aunt in City A. She is doing well. [ 7 ] Z and Y are now placed together since January 2019. Before, Y was transferred few times.

This lack of stability contributed to Y’s difficulties at school. The child will have to repeat his school year. This child needs more services. [ 8 ] Since the father was released from jail, he is living at the mother’s residence. He agreed to undergo an assessment on the risk of recidivism because of the nature of his criminal offence, but it is not done yet. We are at the same step than at the last judgment, the father wants to make changes in his life and to seek for services, but he is not yet involved in any treatment. [ 9 ] Only the mother attended treatment and stabilized her life.

She offers good collaboration with the social worker and she is concerned of the well-being of her children. [ 10 ] The mother remain sober until the father is return and the reception of the family allowances back up. The mother is honest. She declared that the father acknowledged his issues and seek for services now. [ 11 ] The mother asks for the reintegration of all her children because she believes she can assume all of them.

Her oldest son, C, even if placed in foster family for nine months, in another judgment, lives at her home with the father and for more than three months now and the social worker is well-aware of that situation and she agrees.

[ 12 ] Consequently, we must consider they have parental capacities to assume all the children. During their regular visits at home, the father was always present and the social worker knew that and everything went well. [ 13 ] The social worker finally admitted that the mother was able to assume the children and the father could help her as long as they both remain sober. [ 14 ] The parents are working hard to have their children back and they are welling to seek for all the services they might need.

The father knows he had to work on personal issues and is ready to receive specialised services. [ 15 ] The evidence from the testimonies is in contradiction with the facts related in the revision report. The social worker changes her recommendations when she testified. [ 16 ] Consequently, the Court agrees with the parent’s position.

FOR THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motions; [ 18 ] DECLARES that the security and development X, born on […], 2007, Y, born on […], 2011 and Z, born on […], 2013, are still in danger; [ 19 ] REMAINS the children with the mother on these specific conditions: − No consumption of alcohol for the parents; − Obligation for the parents to meet the social worker regularly and to follow her recommendations (an intervention plan should be prepared and given to the parents); − That the father seeks for psychological evaluation and follow-up, and social services follow-up for his personal issues (including mental health and sexual deviance); [ 20 ] AUTHORIZES the Director to make unannounced visits at home; [ 21 ] ORDERS the Director to provide aid, counsel and assistance to the parents and the children for 12 months; [ 22 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate actively with the social worker and to authorize her to get information from the professional regarding the evolution of their situation; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Director to provide all the services that Y’s situation requires; [ 24 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director who shall then see that the measures are carried out.

Signed in City B on July 8, 2019 __________________________________ DENYSE LEDUC, J.C.Q. Me Antoine Meunier Attorney for the children Me Adelia Ferreira Attorney for the applicant Me Marie-Josée Ayoub Attorney for the mother Me Michel Grenier Attorney for the father Date of hearing: May 24, 2019