2013 QCCQ 14460, 2013 QCCQ 14460

Protection de la jeunesse -- 135296 2013 QCCQ 14460 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division DATE: September 5, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection Worker duly authorised by the Director of Youth Protection of the A of Health and Social Services A PETITIONER AND X, born on [...], 2006 640-41-001619-136 AND Y, born on [...], 2008 640-41-001618-138 AND Z, born on [...], 2009 640-41-001621-132 AND A, born on [...], 2012 640-41-001620-134 CHILDREN AND B MOTHER AND C FATHER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Sections 38 and 91 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection makes an application to have the security and development of X , 7 years old, Y , 5 years old, Z , 3 years old, and A , [...] months old declared endangered due to parental neglect and psychological ill-treatment (38

b) i), 38 b) 2) and 38

c) Y.P.A.). [ 2 ] Both the mother and the father are present and represented by M e Claude Beaudet. M e Daniel Ouellette acts on behalf of the children. M e Camille Provencher represents the applicant. The parents do not contest that the security and development of the children are endangered. They disagree with some of the allegations and explain others. [ 3 ] The evidence reveals that on February 25, 2013, an agreement on voluntary measures was signed by the parties.

In that document, the parents acknowledge the fact that on February 21, 2013, they were drinking and that one of the twins brought her brother, aged four months, to one of her aunts. When the emergency worker checked, nobody was at home. The house was in great disorder and there was no food at all in the refrigerator. The parents agreed to meet with he center A worker in order to make a decision to attend a treatment centre for their alcohol addiction. The also accepted to make appointments to meet with the psychologist and to provide a reliable babysitter for the children when necessary.

They also acceded to be and remain sober when in presence of the children. [ 4 ] On June 22, 2013, a new report was received by the Director of Youth Protection stating that the children were left alone at the residence. The father explained that the mother was out drinking and that he wanted to find her, so he sent the children to stay with extended family and he finally went drinking too. The Court has no evidence regarding the agreement reached between the father and the extended family about the length of his absence.

When the emergency worker went to the parents' residence, the children were there without the proper supervision of a responsible adult. [ 5 ] Also, earlier the same day, the firefighters had to intervene at the parents' residence. The Director of Youth Protection alleges that the mother was under the influence of alcohol and had forgotten about her cooking. The mother denies that fact and adds that someone else must have went to their house to cook. She cannot provide the Court with a name. Both situations raise concerns in the

Court's opinion. Either the mother was intoxicated that day and the firefighters had to intervene or a stranger went to their house, which is preoccupying given the fact that the children are sometimes left alone there. [ 6 ] The parents admit that the same day, before the intervention of the Director of Youth Protection, the grandmother had brought the child A to her house after finding him outside, left alone in a stroller. [ 7 ] Since the signature of the agreement on voluntary measures, the collaboration of the parents with the Youth Protection Worker has been irregular.

However, since the last report made to the Director of Youth Protection, the collaboration of the parents with the Youth Protection worker has improved. [ 8 ] Since the same date, the parents were able to abstain from alcohol consumption. [ 9 ] All the parties agree with the recommendations made by the Director of Youth Protection asking that the children remain with the parents and that help be provided to the family. [ 10 ] The parents have to resolve their problem with alcohol consumption. Some of the children are very young and therefore very vulnerable.

They need responsible adults, sober ones, to properly take care of them. As demonstrated during the last summer, the parents are able to refrain from alcohol consumption and collaborate with the Youth Protection Director. Therefore, the children can be maintained with their parents as recommended by the Social Worker. [ 11 ] For these reasons, the Court: [ 12 ] DECLARES that the security and development of X , born on [...] , 2006, Y , born on [...] , 2008, Z , born on [...] , 2009, and A , born on [...] , 2012, are endangered pursuant to sections 38

b) i), 38 b) 2) and 38

c) of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 13 ] ORDERS that the children be entrusted to their parents; [ 14 ] ORDERS that the parents meet with the center A worker and make a decision to attend a treatment for their alcohol addiction and ORDERS the parents to comply with the recommendations made by the center A worker; [ 15 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and their parents for a period of one (1) year; [ 16 ] ORDERS the parents to be and remain sober when in the presence of the children; [ 17 ] ORDERS that the mother inform the Social Worker in advance of any period of time when the children will be under the care of a babysitter and that she disclose the identity of the babysitter; [ 18 ] ORDERS any police force to collaborate with the execution of the Court orders if requested to do so by the Director of Youth Protection or one of its representatives; [ 19 ] ENTRUSTS the children's situation to the Director of Youth Protection for the purpose of the execution of the Court orders. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT, J.C.Q.

M e Camille Provencher Lawyer for the petitioner M e Daniel Ouellette Lawyer for the children M e Claude Beaudet Lawyer for the parents Date of hearing: August 20, 2013