2022 QCCQ 12420, 2022 QCCQ 12420

Protection de la jeunesse — 227373 2022 QCCQ 12420 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] “Youth Division” No: 614-41-000478-190 DATE: November 22, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS STE-MARIE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION and X Born on […], 2015 child and A B parents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT

Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act (R.S.Q. c. P-34.1 ) ______________________________________________________________________ Warning : The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcast of information allowing a child or the child’s parents to be identified. Every person who contravenes this provision is liable to a fine (sections 9.2, 9.3 and 135 Y.P.A. ). [ 1 ] In accordance with the requirements of

section 90 of the Youth Protection Act , the Court hereby confirms and gives the reasons for the decision rendered from the bench at the hearing held on November 22, 2022. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) alleges that it is necessary to revise the order rendered by the Honourable Lucie Godin on February 17, 2022. [ 3 ] On October 17, 2022, the Tribunal maintained, on a provisional basis, the child’s placement in a foster family. [ 4 ] Today, the Director recommends that the child be entrusted to a foster family for a period of six months and that support measures be put in place for the coming year. [ 5 ] The mother asks that the child be returned to her care immediately. [ 6 ] The father agrees with the Director’s plan. [ 7 ] The child’s attorney is concerned that the child’s immediate return could impact on the mother’s sobriety.

Question in litigation [ 8 ] Are the proposed measures in the child’s best interest and are they respecting her rights? Context and analysis [ 9 ] The child is thriving with the foster family of the mother’s cousin, Ms. C. [ 10 ] In her last judgment, Justice Godin was quite clear regarding what was expected from the parents. She wrote the following: The goal of the intervention is to return the children in the care of one of their parents. Before doing it, the parents must take the necessary means: for the mother, she must complete a treatment program and remain abstinent for a minimum of four weeks and as for

the father, he must actively engage in services to address his personal issues. [ 11 ] In March 2022, the mother completed the two weeks Healing Journey: Alcohol Abuse and Drug Use Land Based Program. She also took part and completed a grief Edu-Therapy program. [ 12 ] Following her return, the mother acknowledged having relapsed on occasions.

She reports maintaining her sobriety since July 2022. [ 13 ] From October 10 to November 10, 2022, the mother participated in a Traditional Adult Mobile Treatment Program A. [ 14 ] Up until now, for the last four months, the mother maintained her sobriety. [ 15 ] The mother still resides with the maternal grandparents. They can act as a safety net for the children. [ 16 ] Since the last Court hearing, the father only attended a few workshops but does not remember which one. He recognizes drinking on occasions, but not in presence of the children.

His attorney reported that the father was currently registering to attend the [Centre A] starting January 17, 2023, for a six-week program. [ 17 ] The mother met the objectives that were set for her in the last judgment. Of course, she will need to continue to work on her issues. She also appeared mobilized to learn regarding parenting. [ 18 ] At this point, it is in the child’s best interest to order the child’s reintegration to the mother’s care. [ 19 ] The Director’s involvement remains necessary to support the mother in maintaining her sobriety.

The mother should also take steps to obtain a housing unit of her own. It is also necessary to ensure that the father is sober when meeting with the child.

THEREFORE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 20 ] GRANTS partly the application for revision; [ 21 ] DECLARES that the security or the development of the child is still endangered; [ 22 ] REVISES the order rendered on February 17, 2022 by the Honourable Lucie Godin; [ 23 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to the mother’s care; [ 24 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the child and the father be determined by the Director of Youth Protection; [ 25 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue engaging in support services to strengthen her sobriety; [ 26 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother engage in an aftercare program upon completing the treatment program; [ 27 ] ORDERS that the mother report herself and her progress to the Director of Youth Protection worker on a weekly basis; [ 28 ] ORDERS that the father inform the Director of Youth Protection of any steps he has taken regarding his personal issues, alcohol and drug use; [ 29 ] ORDERS that the child not be exposed to anyone under the influence of alcohol and drugs; [ 30 ] AUTHORIZES unannounced visits to the family home; [ 31 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body provide aid, counselling or assistance to the and the family; [ 32 ] THE WHOLE for a period of twelve months; [ 33 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ François Ste-Marie, J.C.Q.

Written and signed on January 6, 2023 /cd Mtre Magdalena Lempicka Counsel for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre Yan Massé Counsel for the child Mtre Marie-Josée Ayoub Counsel for the mother Mtre Justine Bergeron Counsel for the father

Date of hearing: November 22, 2022