2016 QCCQ 11612, 2016 QCCQ 11612

Protection de la jeunesse — 165044 2016 QCCQ 11612 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF […] TOWN OF […] Youth Division No: 614-41-000097-164 614-41-000102-162 614-41-000103-160 DATE: August 31, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JOSÉE BÉLANGER J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2015 Y , born on [...], 2014 Z , born on [...], 2007 [SOCIAL WORKER 1] , Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of the A Health and Social Services 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 A, A district (Quebec) [...] Father of X and Y and C , unknown address Father of Z ______________________________________________________________________ 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 Director of Youth Protection asks the Court to declare the security or development of X, born on [...], 2015, Y, born on [...], 2014, and Z, born on [...], 2007, compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act .

If the Court concludes in such a way the Director of Youth Protection asks it to entrust Z to his mother and X and Y to their parents for a period of one year with other applicable measures. [ 2 ] The children are absent but represented. [ 3 ] The mother is present and represented. X and Y’s father is present as well and represented. They do not challenge the motions and agree with the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures. [ 4 ] Z’s father is absent and not represented. A copy of the motion was served upon the father on June 30, 2016.

According to Mrs [social worker]’s testimony, the father was not in a state to attend the Court hearing today. The facts [ 5 ] The Court considers the following facts as proven by preponderant evidence. [ 6 ] The first signalement occurred on April 21, 2016. The mother was out on April 20, 2016. Early the next morning, X and Y’s father (« the father ») wanted to look for the mother. He left the children unsupervised to get a babysitter. The babysitter came and brought the children to her home. [ 7 ] The mother came back home while intoxicated that same morning. Nobody was home.

She went out to pick up the baby only because she had no ride to bring home the other children. She fed the baby with a leaking bottle and left her in her crib with her snowsuit. She went out to bring the other children home. [ 8 ] The same day the Director of Youth Protection received the signalement before the mother was back home. [ 9 ] According to the mother she only left for five minutes which was impossible considering the time needed to process a

signalement. The baby was found wet because the bottle leaked on her and she was sweating in her snowsuit. [ 10 ] The same morning the father was detained because he was playing with a shotgun while intoxicated. The police released him a couple of hours later. [ 11 ] The children were brought to the clinic to have a medical assessment and were observed to have fever, diarrhea and running noses. The same day they were placed under immediate protective measures.

Later on they were reintegrated back under their mother’s care understanding that she could not drink alcohol in presence of the children or leave them alone. [ 12 ] The second signalement occurred on April 30, 2016. Around 5 am the mother left home to look for the father who was missing. The children were left unsupervised. The parents had consumed alcohol that night. [ 13 ] The mother came home at 7 am. However the police and the Emergency Social worker were already on the premises. [ 14 ] The home was observed to be messy, unheated and very cold. The baby’s body was very cold.

The children were still displaying physical symptoms observed during their previous medical assessment. [ 15 ] Upon being informed that the children would be placed under immediate protective measures the mother became very angry and left the house. Later on the father came back and admitted having drunk four to five beers. [ 16 ] On May 1 st , 2016, the parents were met by the Director of Youth Protection. The mother had a black eye.

The parents acknowledge having conjugal issues. [ 17 ] Later on the mother explained to the Youth Protection worker that the father punched her because he blamed her when the children were placed by the Youth Protection on April 30. [ 18 ] On May 18, 2016, the Court ordered the provisional compulsory foster care of the children in a foster home for 30 days and extended it for another 30 days. The Court hearing under sections 38 of the Youth Protection Act for all the children was set on July 7, 2016. • The parents [ 19 ] The Director of Youth Protection has not met Z’s father yet.

According to the mother the relationship between the child (who is nine years old) and his father is a new one. However the relationship between Z and is stepfather is good as Mr B is acting as a father for him. [ 20 ] The parents have their own place. [ 21 ] Since the placement the parents are seeking help and building their relationship by trusting each other. • The children [ 22 ] Z is nine years old.

He is a shy and healthy boy. [ 23 ] Y is one year old and just learning how to talk. [ 24 ] X is 10 months old and just started to crawling around and observed things around her. [ 25 ] The children were placed with the maternal grandmother and were doing well. [ 26 ] The parents were staying with the grandmother until they have finished their renovations at their house. According to the grandmother the parents are doing well and they take their financial responsibilities by paying the grocery.

Decision [ 27 ] Given the evidence as a whole the Court concludes that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2015, Y, born on [...], 2014, and Z, born on [...], 2007, are compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act . [ 28 ] Considering the parents collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection and their willingness to change their situation the Court concludes that the Director of Youth Protection’s recommendations for the applicable measures are appropriate, reasonable and in the children’s best interest.

For these reasons the Court: [ 29 ] Grants the motions; [ 30 ] declares that the security or development of X, born on [...], 2015, Y, born on [...], 2014, and Z, born on [...], 2007, are compromised pursuant to sections 38 b) 1° iii of the Youth Protection Act ; [ 31 ] Orders the following measures for a period of 12 months; Z [ 32 ] orders that the child Z be entrusted to the care of his mother;

[ 33 ] orders the mother to remain sober in the presence of the child all the time; [ 34 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother’s consent and orders the mother to have a follow-up with a NNADAP worker concerning alcohol abuse and to follow the recommendations made by the NNADAP worker; [ 35 ] Takes judicial notice of the mother’s consent and orders the mother to have a follow-up with a professional concerning her personal issues and to follow the recommendations made by that professional; [ 36 ] orders the mother to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection in order to put an end to the situation that compromised the child’s security or development; [ 37 ] maintains the personal relationship between the child and his father; [ 38 ] orders that the contacts between the child and his father be supervised by the Director of Youth Protection as for the frequency, modalities and length; X and Y [ 39 ] orders that the children X and Y be entrusted to the care of their parents; [ 40 ] orders the parents to remain sober in the presence of the children all the time; [ 41 ] Takes judicial notice of the parents’ consent and orders the parents to have a follow-up with a NNADAP worker concerning alcohol abuse and to follow the recommendations made by the NNADAP worker; [ 42 ] Takes judicial notice of the parents’ consent and orders the parents to have a follow-up with a professional concerning their personal issue and to follow the recommendations made by that professional; [ 43 ] orders the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection in order to put an end to the situation that compromised their children’s security or development; All children [ 44 ] Orders that a person working for an institution or a body provides aid, counsel and assistance to the children and the family; [ 45 ] Orders the police force to collaborate to the execution of this order; [ 46 ] 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 and Mr B Date of hearing: July 8, 2016