2016 QCCQ 11609, 2016 QCCQ 11609

Protection de la jeunesse — 165041 2016 QCCQ 11609 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 614-41-000049-157 614-41-000107-161 614-41-000108-169 DATE: August 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on […], 2003 Y , born on […], 2004 Z , born on […], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the […] Health and Social Services of A, working in Town A, A district (Quebec) […] Applicant and A , residing and domiciled in Town A, A district (Quebec) […] Mother and B , residing and domiciled in Town B, A district (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 applicant asks the Court to declare the security or development of Y, born on […], 2004, and Z, born on […], 2007, in danger pursuant to

section 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act . If the Court reaches that conclusion the applicant recommends to entrust the children to a foster home for a period of nine months. [ 2 ] The parents and the children are present and represented. [ 3 ] The motions are not challenged by either party. [ 4 ] As for X the applicant asks the Court to review a decision rendered on January 7, 2016. On that date the Court entrusted the youth to a rehabilitation center for a period of six months.

If the security or development of the youth is still in danger the applicant asks the Court to entrust him to a rehabilitation center for a period of nine months. [ 5 ] The youth is present and represented. [ 6 ] The motion is not challenged by either party. The facts [ 7 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 8 ] The family is known by the Youth Protection since 2003.

Both parents have a longstanding history of drug and alcohol consumption issues, domestic violence and neglect of their children. [ 9 ] The parents are separated and the mother lives with a new spouse. [ 10 ] In January 2016, Y, Z and other siblings were living with the mother and her spouse. [ 11 ] Following the last Court hearing in January 2016, X was admitted at the A Treatment Center. He was supposed to leave on January 8, 2016. A signalement was received the same day to the effect that the mother had not accompanied him to his treatment program as she was too intoxicated.

Because of his mother intoxication and disorganisation X was only able to get to the center on January 15, 2016. He completed his program and graduated on April 6, 2016.

[ 12 ] The mother acknowledged being intoxicated that day and the children were placed in a foster home the same day. [ 13 ] The children were reintegrated back to the mother’s care after she confirmed her intention to engage in a treatment program to address her consumption issues. [ 14 ] However the mother and her spouse have continued to consume drugs mainly cocaine, speed and other stimulating drugs.

In some occasions they were intoxicated in presence of the children. [ 15 ] On May 9, the mother’s spouse tried to pick up a Concerta prescription (for one of the mother’s children) to use it for his personal benefit. [ 16 ] On May 10, 2016, the mother and her spouse were intoxicated during a meeting with the Director of Youth Protection’s representatives. • X [ 17 ] Following his graduation X was sent back to the Group Home in Town B. In May 2016, it was decided that he could not go back with his mother because of lack of progress regarding her drug issue.

It was also not the right time to integrate his father’s place because of their conflict relationship and other unresolved personal issues. [ 18 ] In the rehabilitation center in Town B X behaviour was observed to be positive as he was doing his chores, respecting the rules and attending school. [ 19 ] However on May 22, 2016, while being in a week-end pass with his father, the youth relapsed and drank alcohol until being passed out. • Z [ 20 ] Z is a shy boy who has been living with his mother all his life.

Like his older sibling he has witnessed violent events that occurred between his parents at a young age, as well as arguments between his mother and her spouse. [ 21 ] He can have a short temper and express anger sometimes. Z can be easily influenced especially by his older brother. [ 22 ] Z has been seen hanging around late at night.

Since the beginning of the year he had missed 63 days of class and only one since his placement (May 10 2016). • Y [ 23 ] At the age of 12 years old, she is the second child of the A-B family. [ 24 ] Y was born through a caesarean and both mother and child had to be hospital-lized for over three months because of severe complication. Fortunately she does not have any complication for this. However she has a ear problem that will require a surgery. [ 25 ] Y has been bullied in school which explains some absence.

She missed seventy days since the beginning of the school year and was suspended fifteen non consecutive days. Since her placement (May 10, 2016) she had only missed three days and was suspended once. [ 26 ] According to the mother the youth has an anger management problem that needs to be deal with. • The father [ 27 ] The father lives with his mother and his niece. [ 28 ] At the beginning of June 2016, the father has expressed to the Youth Protection that he was wishing to have his daughter Y and his son Z back with him. His environment is in process of evaluation.

The mother is happy to know that the father wants to be involved with his children. [ 29 ] At the time of the present hearing the father was detained concerning a criminal charge. It seems that he is detained for a breach of condition after abusing alcohol. Prior to his detention he was working at A Mine. [ 30 ] The father was in a treatment center in January 2016, for his alcohol addiction. He has completed the six week program. However he relapsed on May 19, 2016.

About fifteen years ago he did the same program and four mobile treatments in Town A as well. • The mother [ 31 ] She lives in her own house with her spouse and her children. [ 32 ] She was admitted on May 23, 2016, in a treatment center in Town C. On June 30, 2016, the mother finished the six week program for cocaine abuse. She is very motivated to have follow-ups to maintain her sobriety. However her spouse has stated his intentions to address his consumption issues but not concrete steps were taken as of today. Decision [ 33 ] The three motions are not challenged by either party.

[ 34 ] The parties acknowledge that the security or development of Y, born on […], 2004, and Z, born on […], 2007, are in danger pursuant to

section 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act . They acknowledge some facts in support of those admissions. [ 35 ] As for X, the parties acknowledge that his security or development is still in danger pursuant to the law and filed some admissions in support of that statement. [ 36 ] The evidence is preponderant that the youth and the children cannot be returned to the care of the mother or the father. [ 37 ] X needs to consolidate and put in a day to day practice what he has acquired at the A center.

Among those things he needs to stay sober and to learn to express his feelings in a proper way. [ 38 ] The mother has finished her treatment program as for the father. We need to see in time if they will able to keep their sobriety. [ 39 ] The Court concludes that the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures are reasonable, appropriate and in the children’s and the youth’s best interest. For these reasons the Court: [ 40 ] Grants all the motions; [ 41 ] declares the security or development of Y, born on […], 2004, and Z, born on […], 2007, in danger pursuant to

section 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act . [ 42 ] Maintains that the security or development of X, born on […], 2003, is still compromised according to the Youth Protection Act ; [ 43 ] entrusts the children Y and Z to a foster home for a period of nine months with a possible reintegration with one of the parents if the situation allows it; [ 44 ] entrusts the youth X to a rehabilitation center for a period of nine months with a possible reintegration with one of the parents if the situation allows it; [ 45 ] orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; [ 46 ] orders the Director of Youth Protection to encourage the contacts between Y and Z and their siblings; [ 47 ] orders the Director of Youth Protection to encourage the contacts between X and his siblings; [ 48 ] orders that the Director of Youth Protection provides to X all the services concerning his health which is needed, notably drugs and alcohol treatment and an anger management program; [ 49 ] orders that a person working for an institution or body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the family; [ 50 ] orders that the children go school on a regular basis; [ 51 ] orders that the contacts between the children and the mother occur minimally one week-end per month, those contacts will be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the modalities; [ 52 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother’s consent and orders the mother to pass a drugs test the week prior the visits and the result have to be negative; [ 53 ] orders that the contacts between the children and the father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, modalities and length; [ 54 ] orders the parents to be sober in the presence of their children; [ 55 ] orders the parents to ensure that the children are not put in contact with drunk people or people under the influence of drugs while there are under their care; [ 56 ] orders the mother to continue her follow-up with the NNADAP worker and to follow all the recommendations concerning AA and NA meetings; [ 57 ] recommends that the father seek help for his personal issues; [ 58 ] Orders the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 59 ] entrusts the situation of the children to the Director of Youth Protection who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Josée Bélanger, J.Q.C.

Me Camille Champeval, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Constantin Kiryakidis, attorney for the children Me Michel Grenier, attorney for the mother Me Myriam Gaudreault, attorney for the father Date of hearing: July 7 and 8, 2016