2013 QCCQ 18165, 2013 QCCQ 18165

Protection de la jeunesse — 136668 2013 QCCQ 18165 JC0B11 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY […] Youth Court Division No: 760-41-003855-106 760-41-003856-104 760-41-003857-102 DATE: September 4, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE BÉATRICE CLÉMENT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ X , born […], 2004 Y , born […], 2006 Z , born […], 2007 Children THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION OF LE CENTRE JEUNESSE A Petitioner -and- A -and- B Parents

JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ CAUTION : The Youth Protection Act provides that within the framework of this Act, no person may publish or broadcast information allowing a child or the child's parents to be identified. Whomsoever contravenes this

article is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine [articles 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.]. [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection presents motions for extension of a Court decision rendered on April 2, 2013, in the situation of the siblings X, Y and Z. [ 2 ] The previous judgment declares that the security and the development of the children continue to be in danger in reason of parental neglect in the maternal environment, sexual abuse by the father (X and

Y) and risk of sexual abuse (Z). As well, the Court declares that Z is subject to physical abuse at the hands of her maternal grandfather and his spouse, with whom the children reside since 2010. [ 3 ] The Court renews the protective measures for X and Y, more particularly that they remain in the care of the maternal grandfather and his spouse. The Court revises the measures as to Z, entrusting her to foster care; all the measures to remain in force for a period of six months. [ 4 ] The Director alleges that the interests of the children require the extension and revision of the court decision for one year.

As well as the confirmation of the measures in force, the motion advances that the evolution of the situation permits that Z reintegrate the milieu of her maternal grandfather and spouse, thereby joining her siblings. [ 5 ] The Court proceeds in the absence of the father, as the Director provides proof of service. The mother and the children consign their admissions to the Court file and agree with the measures. [ 6 ] ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 7 ] In December 2010, the Court entrusts the siblings to their maternal grandfather and his spouse, namely Mr. C and Ms D.

X and Y continue to reside in this milieu and although they manifest certain behavioural issues, their evolution is positive. [ 8 ] As to Z, she remains in foster care since the last court order. She maintains regular contacts with her siblings via visits with her mother, and maternal grandfather and spouse. She never stops asking to return to live with her ''nanny'' and siblings. [ 9 ] In regards to the incidents of physical abuse concerning Z, Mr. C and Ms D participate actively with the related measures, while recognizing having been overwhelmed by the care of three young children.

They accept counselling as to the issues of anger management, control and parenting skills. Ms D continues to work on her anger issues at [organism A]. The delegate observes that is now able to control her anger and use appropriate disciplinary methods with the children. [ 10 ] The mother resides with the maternal grandmother. She maintains regular supervised contacts with her children at her domicile. During the last period of measures, numerous issues are brought forth concerning the supervision of the contacts, the lack of rules or consequences for the children and their reactions following the visits.

The mother recognizes having difficulties establishing limits on her children. She collaborates minimally with the intervention and shows no interest in improving her parental skills. [ 11 ] The mother requests more substantial contacts, and that these occur at the Director's office, because of tensions at her domicile. Numerous issues are to consider and the Court leaves the parties to explore solutions, which respond to the children's interests to continue to have significant contacts with their mother.

In default of a mutually satisfactory resolution, the Court invites the parties to present a motion requesting a specific determination. [ 12 ] The father continues to purge a prison sentence for sexual acts against children.

He fails to initiate any contact with the delegate. [ 13 ] After evaluating the evidence, the Court concludes that the security and the development of the children remain in danger and that the application of measures of protection is still required. [ 14 ] The maternal grandfather and his spouse assume the care of the siblings since December 2010 and remain the most significant parental presence in their lives. Their commitment to actively address the issue resulting in the withdrawal of Z from their care, and the consequent changes made, justify that the Court order her reintegration.

The extension of the other measures remains in the children's best interests, the evidence demonstrating little change in the parent's mutual situations. [ 15 ] As to the duration of the measures, the expiration of the maximum delays of placement, as well as the incapacity of the parents to assume the care of their children, dictate the consideration of a permanency plan, the whole in virtue of

article 91.1 of the Youth Protection Act. [ 16 ] The previous judgment takes act that the Director will elaborate a permanency plan for the siblings. Initially, the Director targets entrusting them to the care of their grandparents, but justly suspends this process in view of the events of abuse towards Z. [ 17 ] In conclusion, the Court concludes that the interests of the children justify the determination of an additional period of provisional placement, in order to verify the long-term viability of the grandparent's environment to respond to their needs.

The Court therefore takes act that the Director of Youth Protection intends to complete its elaboration of a permanency plan within the framework of the measures.

[ 18 ] FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS the motions for extension of a Court decision; [ 20 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the children are still in danger; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their grandparents, Mr. C and Mrs. D; [ 22 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the children, their parents and the grandparents Mr C an Mrs.

D; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the parents report periodically to the Director; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the mother actively participate to the measures, namely that she improve her parental skills and participate in a personal follow-up; [ 25 ] ORDERS that Mr. C and Mrs.

D actively participate to the measures; [ 26 ] AUTHORIZES that the contacts between the mother and the children be upon an agreement between the parties and in the presence of a third person designated by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 27 ] FORBIDS all contacts between the father and the children; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the children receive specific health care and health services, namely speech therapy for X and Y; [ 29 ] TAKES ACT that the Director of Youth Protection will elaborate a permanency plan for the children; [ 30 ] THE WHOLE for a period of one year; [ 31 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre jeunesse A for the execution of the present measures. __________________________________ BEATRICE CLEMENT, J.C.Q.

Me Mylène Francoeur Attorney for the Petitioner Me Maryse Fournier Attorney for the mother Me Karine P. Poissant Attorney for the children Date of hearing: September 4, 2013